jasimon wrote:Is it that we dislike when a chemist gets involved and extracts the active ingredient from food, but are OK with anything you can prepare on a household stove? When does a food supplement become a PED?
For things like iodine, there is a well established science that a minimum level of it is needed for normal (i.e. not sporting) bodily functions. There is
chemistry involved, but it is restorative rather than performance enhancing. It has been proven safe in scientific trials at the dosage levels
normally administered (e.g. in bread).
It can be hard to distinguish between restorative and performance enhancing. Asthma bronchodilators, although developed for entirely
restorative purposes, appeared to be abused by some athletes who believed they were performance enhancing. WADA concluded some
weren't, but still banned them because of the adverse effect on athletes health with long term use.
Other substances like caffeine have been less easily defined as performance enhancing, and so previous bans were over-turned.
WADA "monitors" its use - in case stronger evidence emerges of its performance benefits. Or equally, of adverse health effects
from very high level consumption (e.g. in energy drinks).
A food supplement ingredient is, until tested and approved by ASADA/WADA, by definition a PED (guilty until proven innocent).
Athletes are all told this, and while the AFL has attempted to deflect blame onto the coach and support staff, it's by definition the athletes
responsibility to not put unknowns in their mouth.
It's the risk to athletes health that "crosses the line". We've seen the worst of it with the East German athletes, and need to protect athletes from
themselves and/or their less scrupulous competitors. In the case of the AFL and ARL, there's a suggestion that the substances
and/or supplements being administered were not tested in any scientific study - the players were the unconsenting guinea pigs. Ethically, that's deplorable.