IIHF Suspend Evgeny Kuznetsov for 4 Years

[Peiskos]

Are you suggesting that doing cocaine during international tournaments should be tolerated? Zero tolerance is the right call; playing international hockey is a privilege, not a right. He can still continue making his living in the NHL and attend rehab there.

From a political standpoint I believe all drugs should be decriminalized, the current war on drugs has been a monumental failure in just saying a different approach can be used.

The real question is does cocaine elevate the performance of an athlete, I don’t think it does. A 4 year ban is a little excessive, perhaps it’s being done to make an example though, Russians for example are notorious around the world for cheating and doping.

 

[Yakushev72]

That might help to explain why someone that talented could be so ineffective? I was searching for a way to describe his game in the WC's last year, and now it all falls into place - he was stoned!

 

[Eisen]

I don't get that. They can do plenty of drugs when they retire. As an athlete it's just plain stupid.

 

[Gold Standard]

it sure does put a lot of pressure on an aging and declining Malkin to show up at the Worlds for the next 4 years.

 

[Yakushev72]

it sure does put a lot of pressure on an aging and declining Malkin to show up at the Worlds for the next 4 years.

Are you suggesting that Russia's hopes in the WC depend on Kuznetsov? He was unanimously criticized as Russia's worst performer in last year's WC, so I can't imagine that anyone expected anything from him next year. Year in and year out, Russia has the strongest corps of forwards in the WC, and that never had anything to do with Kuznetsov. He is a brilliant talent, so much so that if he played up to his ability, he would be a lot more highly regarded than he is. Russian coaches boycotted him for years because of an attitude problem, and now it may be re-focused as a drug problem.

 

[kelsier]

Didn't Backström get cleared up and even handled his Olympic medal after getting caught of using illegal and actually performance enchanting substance? Now cocaine is an actual recreational drug but in the light of the other event, the IIHF punishment here is largely overstated in my opinion anyway.

*Just crossed my mind how the star players getting caught tend to be Capitals players - a coincidence?

 

[WADEugottaBELAKthat]

I hope that Kuznetsov is mentally stable and happy. I hope for example that he has simply used cocaine a scant few times in order to enjoy the moment, as opposed to having a deep-rooted addiction which he uses to hide from underlying mental difficulties.

On the surface I can pinpoint numerous things that could plausibly cause distress. Firstly, his older brother was murdered and the perpetrator was never found. Secondly, his family moved cities in Russia in order to start anew/hide from the pain. Thirdly, right before he left for the NHL, his former KHL team/fans became vocal and intense in their criticism of his looming departure. These are things that would pervade the minds of even the mentally toughest. And he is human, after all.

 

[sandysan]

Didn't Backström get cleared up and even handled his Olympic medal after getting caught of using illegal and actually performance enchanting substance? Now cocaine is an actual recreational drug but in the light of the other event, the IIHF punishment here is largely overstated in my opinion anyway.

*Just crossed my mind how the star players getting caught tend to be Capitals players - a coincidence?

1) sudafed ( even in backstomian concentrations) isn't illegal
2) whether something does or does not enhance performance, isn't a criteria on WADA's list of prohibited substances, and it hasnt been for a while
3) Cocaine is on the list of prohibited substances

if you think that cocaine should NOT be on the list, then get people to lobby to remove it. but it IS on the list and if we let people argue that a drug that is on the list, shouldn't be or that it should have to explicitely been demonstrated to enhance performance, then the list has zero value.

WADA often detects metabolites of prohibited substances that NO one says enhances performance ( which led to athletes taking masking agents before the sensitivity of instruments increased) it also allows certaind things that are KNOWN to be PED's ( like caffeine).

the list is the list. if you get pinched pissing over the limit, wada considers you a doper.

 

[kelsier]

1) sudafed ( even in backstomian concentrations) isn't illegal
2) whether something does or does not enhance performance, isn't a criteria on WADA's list of prohibited substances, and it hasnt been for a while
3) Cocaine is on the list of prohibited substances

if you think that cocaine should NOT be on the list, then get people to lobby to remove it. but it IS on the list and if we let people argue that a drug that is on the list, shouldn't be or that it should have to explicitely been demonstrated to enhance performance, then the list has zero value.

WADA often detects metabolites of prohibited substances that NO one says enhances performance ( which led to athletes taking masking agents before the sensitivity of instruments increased) it also allows certaind things that are KNOWN to be PED's ( like caffeine).

the list is the list. if you get pinched pissing over the limit, wada considers you a doper.

First of, I couldn't give a flying **** what a professional hockey player does at his spare time. Why? People's general well-being is each person's own business. So if someone wants to go ahead to have a blast of a weekend that includes consuming this or that, I'm not out pointing fingers. Now perhaps I should have specified that particular substance being illegal as far as hockey, other sports and WADA are concerned, but since pretty much everyone here knows the story I thought it was obvious enough not worthy of a mention. Yet since people tend to be keen at grasping straws I should have known better.

Second of all, Backström was using pseudoephedrine, which IS on the prohibited list by WADA (regardless of whatever criteria applies or doesn't apply) as you can find on the following link of which includes the rest of the substances as well:

https://www.wada-ama.org/sites/default/files/wada_2019_english_prohibited_list.pdf

Here's another article that's ~a year old:

"Pseudoephedrine (PSE), a sympathomimetic drug, commonly used in nasal decongestants, is currently banned in sports by the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA), as its stimulant activity is claimed to enhance performance. This meta-analysis described the effects of PSE on factors relating to sport performance."

Effects of pseudoephedrine on parameters affecting exercise performance: a meta-analysis

As I said, to ban an athlete for 4 years for using generally illegal substance that he probably isn't using before the game or between the periods is harsh in my opinion when compared to letting another player basically off the hook, someone who was using performance enchanting substance to gain advantage over his competition. However else you might see this is your own business and it doesn't really concern me.

 

[Jussi]

Bäckström's case was more a case of overdosing (basically on gameday) on a medication that he's been approved for using and needed to use in Sotshi (allegic, area not kind for allergics at that time of the year). It was a mistake that he should've received the kind of punishment such minor mistakes usually get (like a year's suspension which meant he would have missed one World Championship tournament tops).

 

[sandysan]

First of, I couldn't give a flying **** what a professional hockey player does at his spare time. Why? People's general well-being is each person's own business. So if someone wants to go ahead to have a blast of a weekend that includes consuming this or that, I'm not out pointing fingers. Now perhaps I should have specified that particular substance being illegal as far as hockey, other sports and WADA are concerned, but since pretty much everyone here knows the story I thought it was obvious enough not worthy of a mention. Yet since people tend to be keen at grasping straws I should have known better.

Second of all, Backström was using pseudoephedrine, which IS on the prohibited list by WADA (regardless of whatever criteria applies or doesn't apply) as you can find on the following link of which includes the rest of the substances as well:

https://www.wada-ama.org/sites/default/files/wada_2019_english_prohibited_list.pdf

Here's another article that's ~a year old:

"Pseudoephedrine (PSE), a sympathomimetic drug, commonly used in nasal decongestants, is currently banned in sports by the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA), as its stimulant activity is claimed to enhance performance. This meta-analysis described the effects of PSE on factors relating to sport performance."

Effects of pseudoephedrine on parameters affecting exercise performance: a meta-analysis

As I said, to ban an athlete for 4 years for using generally illegal substance that he probably isn't using before the game or between the periods is harsh in my opinion when compared to letting another player basically off the hook, someone who was using performance enchanting substance to gain advantage over his competition. However else you might see this is your own business and it doesn't really concern me.

you might want to brush up on the distinction between prohibited, and illegal. they actually mean fundamentally different things.

to help you out, both pseudoephedrine ( even at mega doses for his " allergies") and cocaine are both WADA prohibited. only one of them is illegal ( as evidenced that you can buy sudafed over the counter, you can't by blow over the counter)

Because something is a stimulant, even if it is a known PED, doesn't mean its on the WADA list of prohibited substances ( see caffeine and nicotine).

this notion that because coke isn't likely a PED that the 4 year ban should be rescinded flies in the face of all of the other things that athletes get pinched for that are ALSO not, or extremely unlikely to positively affect performance, such as the metabolic modulator meldonium.

as far as backstom is concerned, my position has always been the same. you piss over an objective limit, you are a doper.

 

[kelsier]

you might want to brush up on the distinction between prohibited, and illegal. they actually mean fundamentally different things.

to help you out, both pseudoephedrine ( even at mega doses for his " allergies") and cocaine are both WADA prohibited. only one of them is illegal ( as evidenced that you can buy sudafed over the counter, you can't by blow over the counter)

Because something is a stimulant, even if it is a known PED, doesn't mean its on the WADA list of prohibited substances ( see caffeine and nicotine).

this notion that because coke isn't likely a PED that the 4 year ban should be rescinded flies in the face of all of the other things that athletes get pinched for that are ALSO not, or extremely unlikely to positively affect performance, such as the metabolic modulator meldonium.

as far as backstom is concerned, my position has always been the same. you piss over an objective limit, you are a doper.

Surely you can now see the reason why I emphasized that certain aspect of human nature just the earlier. After having already drawn a line between an actual illegal drug and prohibited substance in sports (in other words, acknowledging that we're talking about the same matter), I'm not even that surprised having to read the next two paragraphs regarding the differences between the two as if they were never dealt with or explained already. No offence but I don't see the substantial value of telling a random person he cannot buy coke from the supermarket, since the only humans who are not already aware of this are living in some tribe, far away from modern society.

I really don't know why someone would bring coffee into this discussion far less nicotine which has no positive side effects. Well if the mere reason of having the every day luxury of walking to store next door and buy them would suffice the occasion? Sure. However the reality is that neither one has anything to do with pseudoephedrine and that (along with the coke and convictions) are the things we are discussing here.

With that said, the reality still is one player having 0 game restriction as far as the international ice is concerned and another player with 4 year ban. The difference between the two being one exercising WADA listed substance for recreational reasons and the other in order to improve his own game and hence against the rules trying to affect the outcome of the games/tournament. No matter how you'd want to slice it, it's still nothing more than a bad joke and will remain as such.

 

[sandysan]

Surely you can now see the reason why I emphasized that certain aspect of human nature just the earlier. After having already drawn a line between an actual illegal drug and prohibited substance in sports (in other words, acknowledging that we're talking about the same matter), I'm not even that surprised having to read the next two paragraphs regarding the differences between the two as if they were never dealt with or explained already. No offence but I don't see the substantial value of telling a random person he cannot buy coke from the supermarket, since the only humans who are not already aware of this are living in some tribe, far away from modern society.

I really don't know why someone would bring coffee into this discussion far less nicotine which has no positive side effects. Well if the mere reason of having the every day luxury of walking to store next door and buy them would suffice the occasion? Sure. However the reality is that neither one has anything to do with pseudoephedrine and that (along with the coke and convictions) are the things we are discussing here.

With that said, the reality still is one player having 0 game restriction as far as the international ice is concerned and another player with 4 year ban. The difference between the two being one exercising WADA listed substance for recreational reasons and the other in order to improve his own game and hence against the rules trying to affect the outcome of the games/tournament. No matter how you'd want to slice it, it's still nothing more than a bad joke and will remain as such.

Caffeine is ( unlike both meldonium and coke) both a CNS stimulant AND a proven PED. the problem is that WADA used to test for it but stopped because they could not distinguish those who were taking it for benefit and those who simply ingested a lot of it in their diets.

I suspect that the smelling salts that the players pass around ON TV from the bench could also contain prohibited substances ( my guess ammonium salts that function as vasoconstrictors) even though they have never been proven to enhance performance either.

The list of WADA prohibited subtances contains things KNOWN to function to enhance performance, things that might enhance performance and things that almost certainly do NOT improve performance. but they are STILL on the list and they are all equally prohibited. and if you objectively piss over some limit for any of them, then WADA considers you a doper.

who is the player who had a zero game restriction ? Backstrom was barred from playing IN the olympics, for the gold medal game

Wada doesnt give a crap about the purported or intended use. it uses objective limits of a readily available list of prohibited substances. if you want to get them to change the list, it is fungible. but you dont get to lobby to change the list AFTER you get pinched ( essentially releving you of any responsibility of following the rules).

And to his credit, Backstrom admitted to its use ( while claiming it was either permissable or a physicians error, which based on how much he had seems exceedingly unlikely) Birdman lied to the league and to his team about his affinity for bolivian marching powder. until he got caught.

 

[kelsier]

Caffeine is ( unlike both meldonium and coke) both a CNS stimulant AND a proven PED. the problem is that WADA used to test for it but stopped because they could not distinguish those who were taking it for benefit and those who simply ingested a lot of it in their diets.

I suspect that the smelling salts that the players pass around ON TV from the bench could also contain prohibited substances ( my guess ammonium salts that function as vasoconstrictors) even though they have never been proven to enhance performance either.

The list of WADA prohibited subtances contains things KNOWN to function to enhance performance, things that might enhance performance and things that almost certainly do NOT improve performance. but they are STILL on the list and they are all equally prohibited. and if you objectively piss over some limit for any of them, then WADA considers you a doper.

who is the player who had a zero game restriction ? Backstrom was barred from playing IN the olympics, for the gold medal game

Wada doesnt give a crap about the purported or intended use. it uses objective limits of a readily available list of prohibited substances. if you want to get them to change the list, it is fungible. but you dont get to lobby to change the list AFTER you get pinched ( essentially releving you of any responsibility of following the rules).

And to his credit, Backstrom admitted to its use ( while claiming it was either permissable or a physicians error, which based on how much he had seems exceedingly unlikely) Birdman lied to the league and to his team about his affinity for bolivian marching powder. until he got caught.

Well if you've ever done any sports you'd know that caffeine isn't something that's going boost your stamina and I'm fairly sure it gives you no benefit either as far as actual results are concerned - in any form. On the contrary, it'll accelerate your hear rate and I'd imagine that not being all that desirable especially once the adrenaline kicks in and takes over. And again, completely irrelevant to the discussion. Just like my need for the substance each and every morning.

Oh indeed he did miss the gold medal game and yet received the medal anyway. One game is nothing compared to four year suspension. So if they're both proven "dopers" to borrow your wording, one punishment exceeds another ten++ fold. I'd imagine Kuznetsov being Russian having some kind of bearing as far as the verdict goes, due to the country's reputation and amount of caught offenders these past decades (if not longer). Then again, that's just speculation so I wouldn't waste time pondering over it.

While it's great to hear all these things about WADA and what not, none of this have little to no bearing in regards to what my point is/was. Furthermore, I'm not particularly a fan of Capitals, Sweden or Russia, so I'd consider that pretty objective. If anything it seems borderline amusing for IIHF acting like a justice department, while delivering rather extreme penalties for players using recreational substances and almost handing over the get-out-of-the-jail-free cards for those who actually consume performance enchanting ones. Just my fifty cents for the matter.

 

[sandysan]

Well if you've ever done any sports you'd know that caffeine isn't something that's going boost your stamina and I'm fairly sure it gives you no benefit either as far as actual results are concerned - in any form. On the contrary, it'll accelerate your hear rate and I'd imagine that not being all that desirable especially once the adrenaline kicks in and takes over. And again, completely irrelevant to the discussion. Just like my need for the substance each and every morning.

Oh indeed he did miss the gold medal game and yet received the medal anyway. One game is nothing compared to four year suspension. So if they're both proven "dopers" to borrow your wording, one punishment exceeds another ten++ fold. I'd imagine Kuznetsov being Russian having some kind of bearing as far as the verdict goes, due to the country's reputation and amount of caught offenders these past decades (if not longer). Then again, that's just speculation so I wouldn't waste time pondering over it.

While it's great to hear all these things about WADA and what not, none of this have little to no bearing in regards to what my point is/was. Furthermore, I'm not particularly a fan of Capitals, Sweden or Russia, so I'd consider that pretty objective. If anything it seems borderline amusing for IIHF acting like a justice department, while delivering rather extreme penalties for players using recreational substances and almost handing over the get-out-of-the-jail-free cards for those who actually consume performance enchanting ones. Just my fifty cents for the matter.

1) the evidence that caffeine ISNT a PED isnt dependent on " how much sports I have done" , and is still up for grabs ( it likely helps in some sports but not others) but there is no question that it is CNS stimulant. and we don't use your concept of " pretty sure". and for hopefully the last time, whether something has been proven to enhance performance isnt a salient criteria for WADA, and hasnt been for some times. You keep repeateing that because YOU don't think it enhances performance that it shouldnt be on their list which is complete nonsense.

2) the IIHF is largely blameless on this. they are a signitory to WADA which means that they must abide by THEIR list and limits. the IIHF nor the IOC can tell wada that they don't like the current list so change it ( for the IOC the endaround was to look the other way as some countries operated black labs with sample transport holes built into the walls). The NHL, as a private league and NOT a signatory, can tell WADA to go pound sand.

And as for the equivalence, Backstrom admitted to it, claimed it was given under physician supervision and thought it was allowed. Birdman snorted blow at some party, lied about it ( to the league and the caps) and only admiited it AFTER he got pinched.

so your supposed " equivalency" is bunk.

Look recently, the canadian Spint Canoeist was pinched for ligandrol which is a drug currently being evaluated for muscle wasting disease. She claims that it was in a tainted supplement. I can say right now I have no way of knowing, but if you assume that she is telling the truth then giving her the same punishment as a guy who WILLINGLY snorted blow and then lied about it, is not form of justice at all. There is no doubt about how it got into birdman's urine sample.

so long as blow is on the list of prohibited subtances ( it is) and so long as the IIHF is a signatory to WADA's list and limits ( they are) , their hands are tied.

revisiting whether Caffeine enhances performance, instead of relying on your gut ( and expecting everyone else to do the same) you can go to pubmed and type in
"caffiene and enhanced performance" as actually SEE whether it does or does not ( the one caveat is that pubmed doesnt tell you how " much sports" the authors have done, its a shame really.)

in case typing on a keyboard to look for evidence to support your position is too onerous, here is a recent hit.

enjoy

Int J Sports Physiol Perform. 2019 Apr 8:1-23. doi: 10.1123/ijspp.2019-0098. [Epub ahead of print]
Acute Enhancement of Jump Performance, Muscle Strength, and Power in Resistance-Trained Men After Consumption of Caffeinated Chewing Gum.

Veiner S1, Grgic J2, Mikulic P1.
Author information

1
1 Faculty of Kinesiology, University of Zagreb, Zagreb, Croatia.
2
2 Institute for Health and Sport (IHES), Victoria University, Melbourne, Australia.

 

[kabidjan18]

I hope there is a legal appeals process. I find this absolutely absurd.

 

[sandysan]

I hope there is a legal appeals process. I find this absolutely absurd.

legal appeals to retroactively change the rules so that they don't apply to you, generally don't go over so well.

because sure, if doing blow then lying about it doesnt give you the benefit of the doubt, what can ?

 

[kabidjan18]

legal appeals to retroactively change the rules so that they don't apply to you, generally don't go over so well.

You basically just defined an appeal, so if you're saying that appeals generally don't go over well...to each his own opinion.

 

[sandysan]

You basically just defined an appeal, so if you're saying that appeals generally don't go over well...to each his own opinion.

When you admit to having used it, I stand by my assertion that " the rules should not apply to me" don't go over well.

 

[kabidjan18]

When you admit to having used it, I stand by my assertion that " the rules should not apply to me" don't go over well.

Well, there are two relevant types of appeals here. You can either argue that your circumstances aren't within the scope of that rule, or that the scope of that rule should be narrower generally. You're making a lot of broad statements, but all the facts of the case would be determined in litigation so that is really unnecessary.

 

[kelsier]

1) the evidence that caffeine ISNT a PED isnt dependent on " how much sports I have done" , and is still up for grabs ( it likely helps in some sports but not others) but there is no question that it is CNS stimulant. and we don't use your concept of " pretty sure". and for hopefully the last time, whether something has been proven to enhance performance isnt a salient criteria for WADA, and hasnt been for some times. You keep repeateing that because YOU don't think it enhances performance that it shouldnt be on their list which is complete nonsense.

2) the IIHF is largely blameless on this. they are a signitory to WADA which means that they must abide by THEIR list and limits. the IIHF nor the IOC can tell wada that they don't like the current list so change it ( for the IOC the endaround was to look the other way as some countries operated black labs with sample transport holes built into the walls). The NHL, as a private league and NOT a signatory, can tell WADA to go pound sand.

And as for the equivalence, Backstrom admitted to it, claimed it was given under physician supervision and thought it was allowed. Birdman snorted blow at some party, lied about it ( to the league and the caps) and only admiited it AFTER he got pinched.

so your supposed " equivalency" is bunk.

Look recently, the canadian Spint Canoeist was pinched for ligandrol which is a drug currently being evaluated for muscle wasting disease. She claims that it was in a tainted supplement. I can say right now I have no way of knowing, but if you assume that she is telling the truth then giving her the same punishment as a guy who WILLINGLY snorted blow and then lied about it, is not form of justice at all. There is no doubt about how it got into birdman's urine sample.

so long as blow is on the list of prohibited subtances ( it is) and so long as the IIHF is a signatory to WADA's list and limits ( they are) , their hands are tied.

revisiting whether Caffeine enhances performance, instead of relying on your gut ( and expecting everyone else to do the same) you can go to pubmed and type in
"caffiene and enhanced performance" as actually SEE whether it does or does not ( the one caveat is that pubmed doesnt tell you how " much sports" the authors have done, its a shame really.)

in case typing on a keyboard to look for evidence to support your position is too onerous, here is a recent hit.

enjoy

Int J Sports Physiol Perform. 2019 Apr 8:1-23. doi: 10.1123/ijspp.2019-0098. [Epub ahead of print]
Acute Enhancement of Jump Performance, Muscle Strength, and Power in Resistance-Trained Men After Consumption of Caffeinated Chewing Gum.

Veiner S1, Grgic J2, Mikulic P1.
Author information

1
1 Faculty of Kinesiology, University of Zagreb, Zagreb, Croatia.
2
2 Institute for Health and Sport (IHES), Victoria University, Melbourne, Australia.

I have to say I've read through a lot of stuff during my time in this beloved discussion board but when someone wants to seriously engage on a discussion about whether coffee should or should not be considered a stimulant is just a bit too deep even for me. I mean what'd be next on the menu? Is caffeine more performance enchanting when served black?

IIHF largely blameless? So you're saying WADA is telling IIHF how they must deliver their verdicts? Do you have some inside man at the office sharing intel of how the two collaborate? I would think not. Is there cooperation between the agencies? Surely. But WADA isn't in a position regulate IIHF in regards to how they must sanction each individual case. And yes, it's no newsflash that WADA has no jurisdiction over private league operating in NA. After all I'm sure most of us are already familiar with the case of Backström so if they didn't know that back then, they certainly know by now. It's like someone saying "hey the winter is coming", but since the other person was already aware of that, why bother.

Equivalency? It really seems like you haven't caught the drift of what I've been saying for quite some time now. What does matter if Backström confessed about using the substance for medical conditions when everyone, not just the fans and their home pets, but including Backström's own representatives and the committee of WADA, IIHF and IOC knew he was lying about use of the substance for medical conditions. They most likely just let him off the hook because it was in the best interest of the NHL. It's entirely different story with coke, cause it's illegal by law in most countries and that makes it nearly impossible for league to interfere as well, cause this case has much, much more dynamite init. Yet it has nothing to do with hockey (unless you believe that player is doing lines in the locker room before the game and/or between the rounds). So Kuznetsov getting a long conviction by the IIHF is a joke in a sense of him not trying to affect any outcomes unlike his team mate. I'm not sure what's so hard to understand here, I've expressed my point of view so many times by now and I just keep reading this and that about criterias, PED, substances etc etc. Heck I'm even beginning to believe you're a coffee addict.

So again if you feel indifferently that's completely fine. If you feel they should re-consider their approach to caffeine or what not, then hey that's great. I don't even mind the urge of having to correct something so obvious as using "illegal substance" to "prohibited substance". I just don't see what any of this has to do with what I originally pointed out. Oh well, at least there's bits of humour every here and there so...

 

[sandysan]

I have to say I've read through a lot of stuff during my time in this beloved discussion board but when someone wants to seriously engage on a discussion about whether coffee should or should not be considered a stimulant is just a bit too deep even for me. I mean what'd be next on the menu? Is caffeine more performance enchanting when served black?

IIHF largely blameless? So you're saying WADA is telling IIHF how they must deliver their verdicts? Do you have some inside man at the office sharing intel of how the two collaborate? I would think not. Is there cooperation between the agencies? Surely. But WADA isn't in a position regulate IIHF in regards to how they must sanction each individual case. And yes, it's no newsflash that WADA has no jurisdiction over private league operating in NA. After all I'm sure most of us are already familiar with the case of Backström so if they didn't know that back then, they certainly know by now. It's like someone saying "hey the winter is coming", but since the other person was already aware of that, why bother.

Equivalency? It really seems like you haven't caught the drift of what I've been saying for quite some time now. What does matter if Backström confessed about using the substance for medical conditions when everyone, not just the fans and their home pets, but including Backström's own representatives and the committee of WADA, IIHF and IOC knew he was lying about use of the substance for medical conditions. They most likely just let him off the hook because it was in the best interest of the NHL. It's entirely different story with coke, cause it's illegal by law in most countries and that makes it nearly impossible for league to interfere as well, cause this case has much, much more dynamite init. Yet it has nothing to do with hockey (unless you believe that player is doing lines in the locker room before the game and/or between the rounds). So Kuznetsov getting a long conviction by the IIHF is a joke in a sense of him not trying to affect any outcomes unlike his team mate. I'm not sure what's so hard to understand here, I've expressed my point of view so many times by now and I just keep reading this and that about criterias, PED, substances etc etc. Heck I'm even beginning to believe you're a coffee addict.

So again if you feel indifferently that's completely fine. If you feel they should re-consider their approach to caffeine or what not, then hey that's great. I don't even mind the urge of having to correct something so obvious as using "illegal substance" to "prohibited substance". I just don't see what any of this has to do with what I originally pointed out. Oh well, at least there's bits of humour every here and there so...

You keep interchange words and think ty mean the same thing.

Caffeine IS a stimulant. No one denies this, it's physiological effects are well established. But that doesn't change the fact that it can STILL be a stimulant and not enhance performance. The jury on that is still out.

Because of its well known effects on the CNS, WADA did for a while ban it. The removed the ban ( they never questioned whether it was a stimulant of not, that is settled science) when they determined they could not use objective limits to differentiate those who were using is as a performance enhancing drug and those who simply had high dietary intake.

It's hard to have a rational discussion when one side keeps using non synonymous words interchangeably.

Anyone who tells you caffeine isn't a stimulant, thinks you are too dumb to know the difference.

Words have meanings.

 

[kabidjan18]

You keep interchange words and think ty mean the same thing.

Caffeine IS a stimulant. No one denies this, it's physiological effects are well established. But that doesn't change the fact that it can STILL be a stimulant and not enhance performance. The jury on that is still out.

Because of its well known effects on the CNS, WADA did for a while ban it. The removed the ban ( they never questioned whether it was a stimulant of not, that is settled science) when they determined they could not use objective limits to differentiate those who were using is as a performance enhancing drug and those who simply had high dietary intake.

It's hard to have a rational discussion when one side keeps using non synonymous words interchangeably.

Anyone who tells you caffeine isn't a stimulant, thinks you are too dumb to know the difference.

Words have meanings.

Really?

First of all, I'm 99% sure from previous conversations that he's Finnish (iirc he criticized my inability to read finnish). So you're being pretty rude considering the likelihood that you could engage in a technical discussion with the proficiency that he is doing so, but in another language, is pretty low. You know what he means. I know what he means. We move from there.

Secondly, you're really hammering home on the semantic debate, against a second-language speaker nonetheless, while dropping the substantive argument that he is making that the sentencing itself is still performed by the IIHF. Now, if you have an argument that goes something like "actually, per the IIHF-WADA contract, the IIHF has to follow certain sentencing guidelines and here's the source", then we have a debate. And if this was an entirely different debate and there was no substantive element, or the substantive debate turned on a semantic interpretation, then sure, go ahead. But right now, you're ignoring a clear and simple substantive topic on which the discussion turns, for which the terms are relatively clear, in order to harp on some english definitions in mostly red-herring elements of the discussion. Instead, address his substantive argument and prove that WADA controls the sentencing of athletes within the IIHF's jurisdiction.

 

[sandysan]

Really?

First of all, I'm 99% sure from previous conversations that he's Finnish (iirc he criticized my inability to read finnish). So you're being pretty rude considering the likelihood that you could engage in a technical discussion with the proficiency that he is doing so, but in another language, is pretty low. You know what he means. I know what he means. We move from there.

Secondly, you're really hammering home on the semantic debate, against a second-language speaker nonetheless, while dropping the substantive argument that he is making that the sentencing itself is still performed by the IIHF. Now, if you have an argument that goes something like "actually, per the IIHF-WADA contract, the IIHF has to follow certain sentencing guidelines and here's the source", then we have a debate. And if this was an entirely different debate and there was no substantive element, or the substantive debate turned on a semantic interpretation, then sure, go ahead. But right now, you're ignoring a clear and simple substantive topic on which the discussion turns, for which the terms are relatively clear, in order to harp on some english definitions in mostly red-herring elements of the discussion. Instead, address his substantive argument and prove that WADA controls the sentencing of athletes within the IIHF's jurisdiction.

I'm supposed to divine his nationality?

When he says things like " we are asking if caffeine is a stimulant" no, no we are not. That issue is settled. It is a stimulant independent of what the NHL or WADA or the crazy guy on the corner says.

Caffeine IS a stimulant, it is on dad's list of prohibited substances. If his English caused him to question whether caffeine is a PED ( which is again, DIFFERENT from a prohibited substance) I can assure you this debate is real and ongoing. Some say yes, some say no.

And no one consulted his gut for what it thinks.

What a surprise.

 

[kabidjan18]

I'm supposed to divine his nationality?

When he says things like " we are asking if caffeine is a stimulant" no, no we are not. That issue is settled. It is a stimulant independent of what the NHL or WADA or the crazy guy on the corner says.

Caffeine IS a stimulant, it is on dad's list of prohibited substances. If his English caused him to question whether caffeine is a PED ( which is again, DIFFERENT from a prohibited substance) I can assure you this debate is real and ongoing. Some say yes, some say no.

And no one consulted his gut for what it thinks.

What a surprise.

Again, the entire caffeine talk is a red herring. He could be entirely right or entirely wrong on that subject at it still wouldn't matter. The substantive debate that you two are having is the extent to which the IIHF's anti-doping agency is within the purview of WADA. What items are, have been, or could have been, on the banned substance are entirely irrelevant.