With soft steroid stance, CFL is dopers' delight

I see no leagues mentioned in authorship or representatives from leagues for authorship. Doesn't address a specific question either. Also I read this from this document which really points to each league having their own needs and expectations, as the document suggests:

These model documents may provide alternatives from which stakeholders may select. Some stakeholders may choose to adopt the model rules and other models of best practices verbatim. Others may decide to adopt the models with modifications. Still other stakeholders may choose
to develop their own rules consistent
with the general principles and specific requirements set forth in the Code.
Model documents or guidelines for specific parts of anti-doping work have been developed and may continue
to be developed based on generally recognized stakeholder needs and expectations.

Remember, specific authorship is critical to any evidence-based specific guideline. Also, remember PICO:

http://www.usc.edu/hsc/ebnet/ebframe/PICO.htm http://www.asha.org/members/ebp/framing.htm

Something else I forgot. For those people interested in locating guidelines on a variety of health issues , links to various databases where guidelines can be searched for can be found at the link below. I've often used the National Guidelines Clearinghouse and SAGE and the CMA Infobase in the past when I needed to as part of my job when I was employed.

[url=http://www.agreetrust.org/where-can-i-find-a-practice-guidelines/]http://www.agreetrust.org/where-can-i-f ... uidelines/[/url]

This is a good short article as well:

[url=http://plus.mcmaster.ca/MacPlusFS/documentation/Haynes_6S_Editorial.pdf]http://plus.mcmaster.ca/MacPlusFS/docum ... torial.pdf[/url]

Earl, let me ask you two simple questions (no pyramids needed) :wink:

1- Would you hire someone who lied on his resume and cheated on profile tests ?
2- Would you admit someone who cheated on their college entrance exam ?

Ok, no pyramids will be used to answer. hee, hee

  1. As a general rule, no
  2. As a general rule, no

But why do police officers, and this has happened to me, just give some people a warning when they are caught speeding or don't make a complete stop at a stop sign? I have been just given warnings in both cases with some short counselling by the officer. I was breaking the law of both occasions. Also, an OPP officer caught me with a beer at a provinical park on the beach, public beach, wasn't camping. He told me this is illegal and for me to dump it which I did immediately (was scared poopless I must say). He didn't charge me but again, as he told me, I was breaking the law.

Yea but an open can of beer on a beach is one of our most insignificant laws. It’s the equivalent of a time count violation. A time count isn’t really cheating, it’s just an oversight that messes up the flow of the game. Doping is the football equivalent of arson or murder. No cop would let you walk on that, but apparently the CFL does.

The CFL has a program in place that will need tweaking I'm sure as most programs do but until there are consensus stakeholder driven guidelines that are signed off by participating parties including the leagues, there is no objective written consensus standard for leagues to adhere to. That's a must before I say the CFL system is doing "wrong". There has to be a benchmark that is written in a formal agreed upon document. A guideline system such as what Cancer Care Ontario and other recognized organizations the world over that produce quality trustworthy guidelines do is required before I will say the CFL system is "wrong", "broken" whatever.

Right now, to me, there is no objective manner to say this league is wrong or that one is right in how they deal with doping violations. There must be a consensus document with participating leagues at the table that sign off on such a document and a formal review process must occur at regular points in time with all parties present. And authorship on this document is critical with contact information and conflicts of interest taken care of.

BTW, this is directly on the CCES website:

CCES, CIS and CFL announce robust anti-doping measures after more university football players test positive for banned substances

(Ottawa, Ontario – August 10, 2010) – The Canadian Centre for Ethics in Sport (CCES), Canadian Interuniversity Sport (CIS) and the Canadian Football League (CFL) held a media conference today (Tuesday, August 10, 2010), to announce a series of anti-doping measures that will be put in place immediately for university football players.

On March 31, the CCES conducted or attempted to conduct doping control tests on 62 University of Waterloo football players. A total of 82 sample collections were conducted or attempted. Sixty-one (61) of those sample collections were for urine and 20 were for blood. CCES is managing a total of nine cases related to the University of Waterloo testing.

The CCES conducted unannounced tests on CIS football players from universities across the country during the month of June with the help of the CIS and its member institutions who provided athletes’ performance records and information on their home locations. From those home visits, the CCES has confirmed two anti-doping rule violations and is managing one other potential violation.

“Naturally we’re very disappointed in the results of the home visit tests, as they signal that doping in CIS football is not an isolated occurrence,? said CIS chief executive officer Marg McGregor. “We have significant work to do to address the problem in a systematic and comprehensive manner and to protect the integrity and positive values of university football. We look forward to working with our partners to address the issue.?

CCES will immediately launch an independent task force on the use of performance enhancing substances in football. The task force will look at the prevailing attitudes and trends, if any, towards the use of performance enhancement drugs and the extent to which they may be used in the sport of football. Depending on their findings, the task force may work across sectors to identify and develop recommendations on federal, provincial and municipal actions that may be taken to address the issue of performance enhancing drug use in football; and, provide recommendations for stakeholder actions that may be implemented to tackle the problem. On the basis of their findings during their examination of football, the task force may also comment on the situation that may exist more broadly within all of sport.

More details including the task force membership will be provided in the coming weeks.

CIS will host an Anti-Doping Symposium on Friday, November 26, in conjunction with the 2010 Vanier Cup at Université Laval in Quebec City. The Symposium will feature practical hands-on sessions designed for coaches and trainers. There will also be sessions tailored for athletic directors and senior administration to discuss policy, testing, and doping education approaches. The agenda will also include a presentation by the CCES Task Force on the use of Performance Enhancing Substances in Football on its findings and recommendations.

CCES will increase the number of tests allocated to the CIS football testing program by reallocating tests and focusing on the more at-risk periods during the off-season.

The CFL has agreed to:

Identify, from the ranks of CIS teams, 80 top prospects each year for the CFL’s Evaluation Camp and Canadian Draft.
Provide funding for more extensive testing of those top prospects.
Participate in a public education program that emphasizes to minor football and CIS players that the best way to get to the pros is through dedication and hard work, not the use of performance enhancing drugs that pose a serious threat to an athlete’s health and the integrity of the game.
“Our sport, played with passion and integrity, is a tremendously positive influence on the lives of young athletes and the communities in which they live,? said Kevin McDonald, the CFL’s Director of Football Operations.

“We all share a responsibility to ensure that positive experience is not undermined by performance enhancing drugs. As role models for football players at every level, those of us privileged enough to be part of the CFL are working to fulfill that responsibility.?

TESTING RESULTS:

From the out-of-season testing that occurred during the month of June, the CCES has confirmed two anti-doping rule violations and is managing one other potential violation.

A 3rd year linebacker from Acadia University, Barrie Ontario native, Taylor Shadgett’s urine sample returned an adverse analytical finding for Stanozolol a prohibited substance according to the 2010 World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) Prohibited List. Mr Shadgett admitted to the ingestion of the steroid Winstrol at the time of sample collection. Mr. Shadgett exercised his right to a hearing and received a sanction of two years ineligibility. The decision can be found at www.crdsc-sdrcc.ca.

“Acadia University supports the testing regime and suspension policies of the CCES and the CIS and is committed to the objectives of all sports organizations to achieve doping-free sport thereby protecting the rights of athletes to compete in a fair and ethical sport environment,? said Brian Heaney, Acadia’s director of varsity athletics.

A 2nd year linebacker from the University of Windsor, Amherstburg Ontario native, Christopher Deneau’s urine sample returned an adverse analytical finding for the presence of Methyl-1-testosterone, a prohibited substance according to the 2010 WADA Prohibited List. Mr. Deneau waived his right to a hearing and acknowledged the commission of an anti-doping rule violation. He received a sanction of a two-year period of ineligibility.

“This the first time a University of Windsor athlete has tested positive for performance enhancing drugs,? said Gord Grace, University of Windsor Director of Athletics. “We have a zero-tolerance policy and are fully supportive of the Canadian Anti-Doping Program. All or our students are required to take online anti-doping education from the CCES and we augment that with presentations from an on-site CCES representative who is also a Drug Education consultant from the Windsor Essex County Health Unit. It’s a widespread message that we ensure is communicated to all our athletes without exception.?

From the 62 urine sample collections attempted at the University of Waterloo, CCES is managing a total of nine cases which include: one asserted refusal; a total of four admissions – two admissions occurred prior to the testing procedures and two admissions occurred at the time of sample collection; three adverse analytical findings; and two cases pending a police investigation.

To date, the CCES has closed a total of four of the cases: three admissions of an anti-doping rule violation and one adverse analytical finding for Tamoxifen, a prohibited substance according to the 2010 WADA Prohibited List.

The CCES is continuing to monitor the ongoing Waterloo Regional Police investigation into former University of Waterloo football players Nathan Zettler and Brandon Krukowski, both have been charged with possession of steroids for the purpose of trafficking. Trafficking in prohibited substances is also an anti-doping rule violation. These matters are in the process of review by the CCES and may result in further anti-doping assertions.

“Sport in Canada is a source of great community spirit and pride for Canadians of all ages. We all share a responsibility to ensure that young athletes don’t grow up believing that the route to winning or making the team is by using performance enhancing drugs,? said Mr. Doug MacQuarrie, CCES Chief Operating Officer. “Striving for excellence means to rise to the challenge to be the best you can be. Doping steals this opportunity from the athlete, sport and our society as a whole. Cheating, such as doping, has no place in sport. On behalf of all Canadians, the CCES remains steadfast in its expectation that football, and all sport, be doping-free.?

About Canadian Interuniversity Sport

Canadian Interuniversity Sport is the national governing body of university sport in Canada. Fifty-one universities, 10,000 student-athletes and 550 coaches vie for 21 national championships in 12 different sports. CIS also provides high performance international opportunities for Canadian student-athletes at Winter and Summer Universiades, as well as numerous world university championships. For further information, visit www.cis-sic.ca.

About the CCES

The CCES is an independent, national, non-profit organization. Our mission, to foster ethical sport for all Canadians, is carried out through research, promotion, education, detection and deterrence, as well as through programs and partnerships with other organizations. For further information, visit www.cces.ca.

[url=http://www.cces.ca/en/news-134-cces-cis-and-cfl-announce-robust-anti-doping]http://www.cces.ca/en/news-134-cces-cis ... nti-doping[/url]

And yes, this also:

CCES statement on the decision by the CFL to end its anti-doping service agreement with the CCES

[i](Ottawa, Ontario – June 12, 2015) – Today, the Canadian Centre for Ethics in Sport (CCES) confirms that the Canadian Football League (CFL), taking issue with comments by Dr. Christiane Ayotte, the Scientific Director of Canada’s anti-doping lab, will no longer contract the CCES as the anti-doping service provider to the league.

The CCES began its relationship with the CFL in 2008. Our interest was driven by a desire to protect the health and safety of CFL players through effective anti-doping measures. The CCES also recognized that the lack of an anti-doping program within the CFL could have far-reaching negative impacts on the youth who participate in football in Canada, including our university and college student athletes.

Seven years later, it is the view of the CCES that in comparison to other North American professional leagues (including the recent program put in place by the Ultimate Fighting Championship – UFC) and especially when compared with the 2015 World Anti-Doping Code (Code), the CFL anti-doping program has become outdated. Despite our best efforts with both the CFL and its players’ association (CFLPA) to suggest improvements for their consideration, the CFL/CFLPA Policy is no longer contemporary…
[/i]

[url=http://www.cces.ca/en/news-302-cces-statement-on-the-decision-by-the-cfl]http://www.cces.ca/en/news-302-cces-sta ... by-the-cfl[/url]

That statement by CCES, “no longer contemporary” would be laughed at by the medical community that actually develop and create evidence based guidelines using rigourous methodology. That simply would not cut it by an organization such as Cancer Care Ontario IMHO. It’s actually quite an embarrassement to CCES in many respects. CCES looks like another agency that is unwilling to do the work required (they may need funding of course because creating quality guidelines is expensive) to become truly an evidence-based organization that has standards and guidelines for pro leagues to follow and adhere to in this country.

Earl, you keep making references to patient care. These aren't patients. They are job thiefs, cheaters. The reason you have organizations accredited to run anti-doping programs, collect samples and labs to analyze is specifically to keep the "sports management" out of the equation. What your asking for is akin to asking the thieves to sit down with the judges and the cops and decide what penalties should be put in place. Really !?

I can see the league being greedy and not wanting to spend the money but for the life of me I can't understand how the CFLPA is willing to taint its entire membership which they claim is almost entirely clean to protect cheaters. That defies all logic.

Patient and cheaters are cohorts, a group of some similarity to be studied. Just as clinical practice guidelines uses systematic review methodology to create quality guidelines for patients, in the same vein anti doping agencies can use systematic review methodology for guidelines on how to deal with cheaters so that there is consistency from pro league to pro league. This is why Cancer Care Ontario produces guidelines, so that someone in Kenora with a pathological stage II breast cancer similar to someone in Fort Erie with the same diagnosis is ensured to receive the optimal care as defined by a rigourously produced practice guideline for that disease and stage. In the case of sport, CCES for example would want to be sure that someone who was found cheating for the first time using x drug in the CFL is administered punishment as outlined from a document produced from a systematic review process of the literature and going onto to guideline development using consensus based methodology the same as someone say using x drug in the NHL for the first time.

Consistency results from using a guideline produced as I’ve outlined by an organization like Cancer Care Ontario that uses as a basis, for the large part, a systematic review process but further with a guideline where you are consulting stakeholders for review and sign-off and being sure conflicts of interest are taken care of.

And, as we’ve seen, even the most rigorously produced guidelines still allow for patient preferences and for oncologists to deviate from the guideline for some reason such as comorbidites for example. In the case of doping in sport, it might be that such and such a cheater for the first time might not be punished as per the guideline for a similar reason, say that person was using medical marijuana prescribed by a physician to treat some sort of intractable pain that the physician thought was in the best interest of the patient who also happens to be a cheater.

Systematic reviews and guidelines are used in all sorts of disciplines, not just health care.

WHAT?
holy christ.
guy pees. guy is dirty or clean.
Simple
Sanction or no sanction occurs.
WTF.

LOL!
Seriously!

This isn’t cancer treatment, this is punishing cheaters in sport.
There has never been, and likely will never be, a “systematic review methodology” for this because it isn’t about people dying. It’s about punishing cheaters.

It doesn’t have to be uniform across sport leagues.
Laws aren’t uniform across nations/states/cities.

Don’t make it out to be more complex than it should be.

Very funny, complexity is what is happening now, if CCES went to a guideline based systematic review methodology it would actually be far less confusing than now. At least for me. The beauty with the scientific method is that it's observable and measurable with the tools available and you know exactly, well in as much empirical terms as is possible with present knowledge, what the score IS and what the score ISN'T.

Right now I would say it's simply a dog's breakfast and may the best poppy article in whatever poppy newspaper win the race. That to me is very complex because I don't have evidence based empirical tested results that are validated and scored in a valid and reliable manner across pro leagues and cheaters are cohorts from pro league to pro leauge but again, how you are going to measure inclusion and exclusion criteria for the guidelines will be up to the methodologists and leagues and scientists, the experts. Not the way this guy works or the way any reputable health related system works for optimal decision making, and doping in sports is definitely health related.

CCES saying "no longer contemporary" and not providing evidence based guidelines and reviews but relying on "well this is what they do over there so it must be right" is basically garbage pseudoscience. CCES should be ashamed of themselves. Unreal in this day and age when the methods are there. Totally unreal.

In Pubmed, my search in the author affiliation field for Canadian Centre for Ethics in Sport (ok, this field isn't controlled like MeSH in Pubmed, that I'll agree with for you budding medical librarians out there :wink: ), comes up with just one reference as below:

  1. Clin J Sport Med. 2002 Jul;12(4):245-9.

Nutritional supplements and doping.

Pipe A(1), Ayotte C.

Author information:
(1)Canadian Centre for Ethics in Sport, University of Ottawa Heart Institute,
Ottawa, Ontario, Canada. apipe@ottawaheart.ca

CONTEXT: The problems of doping in sport and the increasing use of nutritional
supplements by athletes are issues that intersect to the degree that a large
number of supplements may contain substances that are banned in sport. Many
supplements contain substances that are associated with significant health
hazards. Athletes consuming such supplement products may jeopardize their
sporting status, and their health.
OBJECTIVES: To clarify and summarize the current status of dietary supplements in
general, and to describe specific problems that can be associated with supplement
use so that sport physicians might be better prepared to address these issues
with their athlete-patients.
DATA SOURCE: An analysis of recent and relevant literature accessed through
MEDLINE, and interactions with clinicians, laboratory scientists, colleagues, and
athletes.
CONCLUSIONS: The dietary supplement industry is completely unregulated in the
United States; as a consequence, an abundance of supplement products of dubious
value, content, and quality are now available around the world. It is known that
many supplement products contain substances that are prohibited in
sport-typically stimulants or anabolic steroid precursors. Many supplements
contain substances (e.g., ephedrine) that have been associated with significant
morbidity and mortality. Sport practitioners have particular responsibilities in
addressing this issue. Athletes need to be aware of the problems that can follow
supplement use, and sport authorities need to ensure that nutritional education
and guidance for athletes is of the highest standard. The need for the
appropriate regulation of dietary supplements is emphasized.

PMID: 12131059 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

So this first author affiliated with CCES wants more regulation in sport! Wow, so do I. Hey, CCES, I guess we really are on the same page to some extent. :lol:

earl...you must have really enjoyed all those government meetings you have attended over the years. they have clearly had an impact on you.

No, I was never a supervisor or in management, just a regular joe who did the actual work so I didn’t have many meetings to attend where the supervisors and managers would talk about personal family type stuff, from what I hear, 80 percent of the time and actual work related stuff 20 percent of the time, give or take a few percentage points. :wink: