Hans Knauss banned for 18 months for taking steroids

A snowHead

The FIS has banned Hans Knauss for 18 months following his positive test for a banned anabolic steriod. FIS stated that it believed Knauss did not act intentionally when taking the steroid but was negligent in taking an unrecommended food supplement.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/other_sports/skiing/4309525.stm

A snowHead

That's probably the end of his career then. He's already in his 30's.

Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?

Yes, a sad end to his career as everyone seems to agree that he did not set out to use the steriods.

You need to Login to know who's really who.

Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.

David Goldsmith, does tomato ketchup contain steroids?

You'll need to Register first of course.

My god im glad it wasn't a footballer, he would have been hung, drawn, and chuck in the bin on here rob@rar.org.uk, Puzzled

Then you can post your own questions or snow reports...

After all it is free

David Goldsmith, I too took a much more sympathetic line with Alain Baxter, to the point that I think he had a major injustice did to him. For Knauss I'm simply taking at face value what the FIS have said: it was inadvertant and presumbably he did not set out to gain unfair advantage. At the time of his A sample test there was speculation that he had bought the food supplement over the internet. I said at the time that this was an incredibly stupid thing to do if it was the case. However, none of this is at odds with my opinion that it is a sad end to his skiing career given the circumstances which everyone seems to acknowldege. Bode Miller, for example, described the cases of both Baxter and Knauss as "bull$hit".

There is a lot of BS talked about drugs in sport and I think that FIS have done the campaign to get drugs out of sport a disservice by stating that they believed it was unintentional and not banning him for 2 years.

The taking of supliments is done for one reason only, to improve your performance. If you take a substance to improve your performance and don't know what is in it, you deserve whatever you get. The problem is that you cannot distinguish between those who know the supliment contains illegal drugs and those who don't. The only person who knows with absolute certianty whether Knauss knew there were steroids in the supliment is Knauss and even if he did know, he is unlikely to admit it.

And that is the problem with all these cases. To get rid of drugs we need a policy that states if drugs are found in your body, you are guilty unless proven innocent and you cannot take character references and the accused's own word as evidence. There have been too many "I cannot believe he/she took drug" to allow such nieve excuses.

The only case that I have come across where there has been mitigating circumstances that warrant a not guilty verdict is that of Greg Redeski, who was given the drug by a representative of the sport governing body.

Alain Baxter was unfortunate but he didn't have an injustice done to him. He self administered an illegal drug and while we all believe that it was an accident, if you let him off then any cheat could take the drug and then claim the Baxter defence. I think he was lucky to get such an insignificant ban because there are many sports where he would have got 2 years.

It doesn't matter what sport it is, get caught with an illegal drug in your body or miss a test, you should get a 2 year ban for the first offence and banned for life for a second. Extenuating circumstances need to be exactly that. "I didn't know" and "I forgot" don't stack up.

*Ski* the Net with snowHeads

SimonN, there is considerable merit in your argument, but in my opinion any rule which is so tightly contrained and enforced that it occasionally seems to run counter to natural justice is going to risk not being supported by the people who most matter - the athletes themsleves. In Baxter's case I think the best person to decide on the wisdom of the IOC's decision is the guy who gained the most from the decision to disqualify Baxter, Benni Raich. He made it clear that he thought the result should stand, and in my book that counts for a lot more than the IOC or the various appeal bodies that Baxter sat in front of.

snowHeads are a friendly bunch.

SimonN, I tend to agree with what you said, however I do feel for Alain Baxter, after all he simply went out and got an inhaler that he new was legal and had been approved, only to find that it wasn't due to the US version having a tiny amount of possibly perfomance enhancing drug in it.

snow reports

rob@rar.org.uk, I do have a lot of sympathy with Baxter but having sympathy doesn't change the facts. he was caught with a banned substance in his body and if he was let off, you have to let off everybody else who uses his defence. When it comes to drugs in sport, a zero tollerence is the only option because if you give even the slightest mixed message, the cheats jump on it.

You state that there is a risk of losing support of those who really matter, the athletes. This is not so. Most athletes who understand this are as passionate as me about this issue. Look at the stance that the likes of Paula Radcliffe, seb Coe and others take. And they are the high profile ones.

And you cannot say just because the person who benefitted from Baxter's disqualification thinks the result should stand that makes it the right view. It shows total ignorance of drugs in sport, how the cheats work and the problems of setting precidents.

Why am I so passionate? Well, I used to be a member of the British Olympic Sailing Squad and I now help coach people in that squad. I do talk to athletes and coaches in other sports as well. I have been tested a few times and know a lot of people who are regularly tested. I was actually warned about my caffeine intake getting close to being illegal (its a dioretic used to reduce water in the body and hence reduce weight). All I was doing was drink coffee, which I am addicted to. But it is impossible to tell if I was doing it to artificailly reduce weight or whether it was because I liked the stuff. Today, I would fail a drugs test because I drink too much coffee and take over the counter drugs to ease aches and pains of an abused body.

The more you know about drugs in sport and more importantly, the lengths cheats go to to cover up, the more you become intollerent about it.

SimonN, I don't disagree with you on the need for drug rules to catch cheats and those who inadvertently gain advantage through cock-up or conspiracy. I have no problem with Knauss being banned, even if it was unintentional it was stupid of him and now he is paying the penalty. But as far as I know Baxter does does not fall into either of these categories: it was recognised that he did not deliberately set out to cheat, and the particular variant of the banned substance that he had inadvertantly taken had no benefit for his discipline. Any system which knowingly sacrifices innocent victims through draconian application of the rules brings sport into disrepute. I vaguely recall after all the Baxter appeals had been completed the IOC or perhaps the Court of Arbitration in Sport said that they would be revieiwing their rules to try to avoid the kind of situation that they got into with the Baxter case. Did this happen, or am I just getting that bit wrong?

I agree that the fact Benni Raich returned Baxter's bronze medal doesn't make it the right view, but as a former Olympic athlete yourself don't you think the opinions of current atletes should carry a great deal of weight? I certainly do.

You know it makes sense.

rob@rar.org.uk, I wish I was good enough to be a "former Olympic Athlete"! I only made the squad, which was made up of those who might stand a chance of going to the main event. To be honest, I was never really good enough but I got squad status because my crew was somebody the team wanted to nurture. They were proved right. After I stopped he sailed another type of boat and went to Sydney in 2000. I still dream of wearing the uniform and walking out into a packed stadium for th opening ceremony...........

I do recall that there were suggestions of looking at the rules following what happened to Baxter but i believe that it was found to be impractical to change the rules without leaving loopholes for cheats. I also have to disagree with you that there was a draconian application of the rules in Baxter's case. The IOC and the Court of Arbitration in Sport both agreed that the rules had been fairly applied.

I don't believe that it matters whether the drug did or did not enhance performance. The moment you go there you open up a whole load of problems - people claiming a particular drug doesn't help their sport etc. On top of that, while there may not be a physilogical benefit from a drug there might be a pshycological benefit derived by the individual.

It isn't easy to satisfy all situations. I really feel for Baxter. I don't think he tried to cheat and the mistake he made is totally understandable It was my ambition for many years to win a medal and I can only imagine what it must be like to have it taken away. But there is a simple premiss in which the whole drug thing is based and that is that individuals are responsible for what they put in their bodies.

Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:

I hold a very simplistic veiw on this issue.

If you take something that is either natural or unnatural you know as a sports man that your govening body bans certain drugs / sustances. You are given a list of these subsatances and it is your responsability to make sure what you are taking does not contain these banned substances.

If you have used brand X for several years and then for example you use brand Y becuase it is cheaper or claims to provide better performance then you surely check to see it doesn't contain anything banned before you start to take it.

If by mistake you take something banned it is still you who took it.

May be in todays society of not wanting to take accountability or responsability for our actions leads certain people to get themselves into these mess's

I agree that with alan baxter he used a product in the Uk which was legal but the same product manufactured in a different country contained banned substances. The responsability was still on him to check but he just assumed.

The failed test is disappointing and im sure he felt sick about it but it is still his problem.

Think of it this way, what if all the skiers knew of the difference in the product but then treid to justify thire action with the same answer as Alan. Then surely this is cheating.

A snowHead

Its a view that many take Super Eagle, but do you think you, or the person sitting next to you on the Clapham omnibus, would pass a drugs test if it were taken now?

I bet a lot of us would fail for stuff we never dreamed of is considered 'drugs' by a faceless set of administrators.

The cynic in me tends to believe that regarding the Baxter case, he comes from GB which is an Olympic Association that holds no weight with the IOC when they are assessing for Winter Olympic candidates, (ie when the Rolexs etc get handed out.)

A snowHead

Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?

T-Dub, I don't much care whether athletes take drugs or not, but the fact that you or I might not pass an athlete's drugs test right now is irrelevant to Baxter's (or any other athlete's) guilt. If I was competing in a sports event (fat chance, I must admit), I'd make damn sure that I took nothing which could contain banned stuff. Athletes have pleaded the old 'I only had a Werthers Original last Tuesday week' excuse for years, and all athletes must know the dangers of taking any drugs, especially in a complex mixture such as a nasal spray or a 'dietary supplement' (nudge, nudge).

Baxter (and I've nothing against the bloke) was either deliberately using banned drugs or he used a nasal spray in all innocence, in which case he must be an idiot. He doesn't appear to be an idiot, and even if he isn't the sharpest knife in the box, he presumably has people around him who are reasonably sensible. Same applies to this Knauss bloke.

You need to Login to know who's really who.

Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.

Doesn't really affect the argument above, but an interesting aside to this affair, from memory, was the part of Baxter's case that proved the FIS categorisation for this particular drug was too broad-ranging and actually covered two distinctly different varieties of the product - one performance-enhancing, the other not. The one in Baxter's nasal spray was the latter. I've got a feeling the drug classification has since been revised as a result...

You'll need to Register first of course.

richmond, my understanding is that Baxter often has trouble with a blocked nose because of a particular sinus condition. He has used Vicks Sinex Inhaler since he was a child to alleviate the condition, particularly for sleeping. He had checked that this over-the-counter medication was acceptable to the relevant authorities (I think both the BOC and the FIS). When he was in Park City for the Olympics be bought a Vicks Inhaler. Unfortunately the composition used in the US version is different to the composition that Vicks use in the UK and the rest of Europe. It was the Vicks Inhaler (US version) which contained the banned substance. If this was the first time the Baxter had used the Vicks Inhaler and he had not had it approved by the relevant authorities I would agree with you that he is an idiot. But I think the facts show he had taken the necessary steps to remain drug free, and the mistake he made was one which I believe anybody could make.

The US Vicks inhaler contains levomethamphetemine which is an isomer of methamphetamine. Another isomer of methamphetamine is called dextromethamphetamine, more commonly known as the recreational drug 'speed', which is what some media coverage focused on at the time of Baxter's positive tests. The levomethamphetemine variant is not regarded as performance-enhancing, but obviously the the dextromethamphetamine variant is performance-enhancing in an explosive discipline like slalom. Unfortunately the IOC and the CAS did not allow Baxter to present evidence to show that his test result was based on the low level (25 nanograms) of levomethamphetemine found in his urine - he was banned on the basis of non-specified methamphetamine.

As I see it Baxter lost his medal for a mistake which was unlucky rather than the result of stupidity or the desire to cheat. To make matters worse the illegal drug found in his system was not performance-enhancing, but was simply lumped in with other chemically similar drugs which might have given him an advantage. Despite offering evidence to show this, the drug rules were, in my opinion, operated like a blunt instrument. I hope that, as PG suggested, the drug rules have been refined since the Baxter case to prevent this kind of injustice happening to other athletes.

Then you can post your own questions or snow reports...

SimonN, I did say that he doesn't appear to be an idiot (I've looked at his website, but I'll give him the benefit of the doubt; the camera can be soooo cruel).

Either he took the drug deliberately, naughty fellow, serves him right, or he took it recklessly or stupidly, idiot, serves him right. There doesn't seem to be a third possibilty.

What was he doing taking a nasal spray or anything else, especially so close to a competition? The world is full of athletes who apparently innocently took innocuous sounding stuff that turned out to 90% speed (or whatever); he should have known better and I find it very hard to believe that he didn't.

After all it is free

rob@rar.org.uk, our posts crossed, I think. I must sound as if I have it for Baxter; I don't, and I was sorry when he lost his medal. I don't particularly mind if athletes do use drugs, if they want to; they abuse their bodies in so many other ways, they might as well. Make it a free for all, test everyone and publish the results.

But ..... I remain puzzled that a professional athlete was even thinking about sticking stuff out of a shop up his nose close to a competition. If he has problems with his hooter, he must surely have had a standard remedy known to be OK which he carried with him. It's hard for me to see what happened to him as an injustice.

Anyway, it was a shame.

*Ski* the Net with snowHeads

richmond, he had full approval to use the vicks nasal spray, what he didn't know was that the US Vicks Inhaler was different to the European Vicks Inhaler in that it included one non performance enhancing varient of methamphetamine, if you went into a chemist and asked for a particular brand of paracetomol in the UK and the same brand in the US you would not expect there to be a differance, he was unlucky to find that there was a difference, even more unlucky to find that it was a drug that due to testing inadaquacies was on a banned list even though and everyone agreed this, the particular varient in the inhaler does not enhance performance. In my opinion that was not reckless, stupid naughty or anything other than unlucky - Mind you I bet he double checks the fine print of everything he takes now !

snowHeads are a friendly bunch.

richmond, oops, crossed posts again!

Alain has used a standard remedy (Vicks Nasal Inhaler) known to be OK for a number of years. The fact that this is readily available just about anywhere would mean it unnecessary to carry supplies with you.

I think what happened to Alain was more than a shame, and although I wouldn't want to get into a disagreement with you on the meaning of the word 'injustice', that's what I think happened to him on this case.

snow reports

rob@rar.org.uk, we've crossed again. I that think I included your third possibility in my 'reckless or stupid' group.

If the drug is not performance enhancing, that seems to me a better ground for complaint about the outcome than the circumstances in which he took it. Am I right in remembering that a Canadian (?) snowboarder lost a medal for testing positive for hash? That seemed a bit harsh, as I can't really see hash as a performance enhancing drug.

I think all the so called recreational drugs are banned because they are generally illegal in most parts of the world rather than any specific performence enhancing qualities

You know it makes sense.

richmond, I find your whole attitude to drugs in sport most puzzling.

"I don't particularly mind if athletes do use drugs, if they want to; they abuse their bodies in so many other ways, they might as well. Make it a free for all, test everyone and publish the results."

What about those of us who don't want to use drugs. Why should we be forced to just to be able to compete on a level playing field. Your ideas would condemn all athletes to take drugs which can have lasting effects on your health and will almost certainly lead to premature death.

"Am I right in remembering that a Canadian (?) snowboarder lost a medal for testing positive for hash? That seemed a bit harsh, as I can't really see hash as a performance enhancing drug."

A meadl winner in a sport like Snowboarding is a big role model for many youngsters. You think its OK for such a person to smoke hash and be seen to be breaking the law? It would be quite right for him to lose his medal and be banned for bringing sport into disrepute. As it happens, he got off claiming he didn't smoke hash but that he had it in his body due to "passive smoking"!

If it is your view that to use a remedy that you have used for years and have been told is ok is "reckless or stupid", I think you have a very warped view of the matter.

Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:

Baxter was stitched up, simple as.

The result didnt follow the script, so Baxter got his medal taken away and given to someone who was 'more worthy' ie an Austrian (with an Austrian olympic bid on teh horizon). Great respect to Raich for his declining it.

I have nothing but contempt for the way the then semi-corrupt IOC turned an ernest athlete into a convicted drugs cheat, a stain that will haunt him for ever, over a technicality that belied even their own rule book.

And the IOC committeemen that oversaw a new benchmark giving and taking handouts prior to the Lake Placid games? Who will ever point a finger or make a joke at their expense? Who even remembers them?

At least the IOC have had the cleaners put through them since.

To return to the thread. Shame for Knauss, but there it is. The rules relating to performance enhancers (rather than retarders) is indeed written down and undrstood by all

A snowHead

richmond,

A snowHead

Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?

You need to Login to know who's really who.

Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.

You'll need to Register first of course.

rob@rar.org.uk, short and to the point.

Then you can post your own questions or snow reports...

SimonN, a couple of points.

I don't think that these people are role models; I think role models for most kids ar emuch closer to home. I very much doubt that some snowboarder's behaviour will change anyone else's behaviour, even a devout snowboarder's. I don't imagine that too many snowboarders need encouragement to have the odd puff anyway.

I think it is the responsibility of the role model (if that's what s/he is) to behave appropriately; if they have to be forced to do so by their sport's controlling body, it's all a bit of a sham, no?

At the risk of starting another health fascist tirade (not from you, SimonN), if the worst that someone does is have the odd toot, then they're not doing themselves r anyone else much harm.

I won't bore on about Baxter anymore, I probably have been too harsh about him. I agree with your reply to T-Dub. Don't kid yourself T-Dub; UK's failure to do well in Olympics, winter or summer (which bothers me not at all), has nothing to do with the undoubted cupidity and corruption within the IOC.

After all it is free

rob@rar.org.uk, I was unaware of the Austrian case and I cannot understand how that happened. Or maybe I do! The policy on drugs in sport is led by the World Doping Agency. Each sport needs to sign up to it with football being a very high profile sport that hasn't fully done so. Not only does a sport need to sign up, but national authorities do as well and so do major sports events, such as the Olympics.

While the Austrians might not have enforced the rules correctly, is it known whether Schoenfelder is eligable for the next Olympics? I suspect not.

The point is that the application of the rules depends on who has jurisdiction. If it is the IOC, the rules will be applied to the letter. If a national authority or a sport decides not to use the rules, that is for them to decide. The Ferdinand case is a classic example where the WDA and FIFA both wanted a 2 year ban but the FA decided not to for reasons best known to itself but probably becasue they needed him for the England team and didn't have the funds for the law case that would have followed a longer ban.

I do agree totally that it is rediculous that the rules are applied haphazardly but the people who are at fault are those who do not enforce them properly, not the ones who do.

richmond, I think you are mistaken if you don't think these people are role models. maybe not British kids but if you saw the kids hanging around snowparks when these guys are riding, you would realise that they copy everything - cloths, equipment, brand of beer and yes, drugs. Sports people of all sorts are role models and as such, do have a responsibilty to act accordingly. If they don't, the sport should stop them being in a position to be a role model.

As for the use of hash, I it should be legalised but until it is, sportpeople should not take it as they are role models.

*Ski* the Net with snowHeads

rob@rar.org.uk, Sorry to say you are misguided when you say that the IOC took away the golds from Muelhegg. They didn't, because they felt the rules didn't allow them to do so. It was the Court for Arbitration in Sport that finally interpreted the rules as allowing the medals to be taken away.

And that's the whole point. There are totally independent organisations who make the rules and the rulings, namely The World Anti Doping Authority and The Court for Arbitration in Sport. The IOC does what it sees fit and there are fail safes to ensure if they make a mistake, it can be corrected. This is to ensure that there aren't the inconsistancies that you claim there are.

With regard to Schoenfelder, it seems he was fortunate in that even if he had been banned for 2 years, he would not have missed an Olympics. If a 2 year ban had coincided with the Olympics, and even though he had not received a 2 year ban, my understanding is that under IOC rules, he would not have been elligable to compete.

Help!!

Hans Knauss banned for 18 months for taking steroids

snowHeads Forum Index >>> The Piste