Katie Compton Banned Four Years for Anti-Doping Rule Violation

So why does Kate get a 4 year ban while Denise Betsema got 6 months for what I think is a bigger and clearer cut infringement?

The most obvious answer is politics.

1 Like

Time for a very quick chemistry lesson :man_scientist: :tada::
Every organic molecule (such as testosterone) is mostly (by weight) made up of Carbon atoms. Carbon has 2 stable isotopes, 12C with a molecular weight of …well 12, which is 98.9% of Carbon atoms . And 13C, with a molecular weight of… you guessed it: 13. Roughly 1.1% of Carbon atoms.

Here the interesting bit: because 13C is heavier than 12C, it reacts ever so slightly slower in chemical reactions than 12C. This means that with every change and chemical reaction that happens to an organic molecule, it will be enriched with 12C relative to 13C.

So were does our natural occurring testosterone come from? Our bodies build it from organic molecules that made it all the way through the food chain, going through a bunch of chemical reactions, meaning it´s quite enriched in 12C.
Where as artificial testosterone is chemically synthesize in a laboratory (funnily enough Soy beans seems to be the most common base material), meaning it´s 12C/13C ratio is closer to the natural abundance of these isotopes.

So if you test an athletes testosterone, the isotope ratio of it is a pretty accurate way of determine, whether or not it is artificial. I should also point out that the isotope ratio analysis only determines isotope ratio, not the concentration of total testosterone in the blood. That is done with a different test.

(P.s. I´m no expert on ingestion of steroids, but I personally strongly doubt, you could throw off this test with a tainted steak or burrito or whatever)

27 Likes

Good share thanks. Clears it up and definitely makes it more obvious what was likely at play.

Great explanation. This testing seems far superior than testing total T levels in the body, as everyone has unique levels.

Also, similar to the Lance Armstrong story, interesting to see everyone who is a Compton believer standing up for her and essentially denying that she took PEDs (that is, knowingly ingesting them - obv she did by merit of the test you just described).

I never followed her career so I am indifferent about this news. But taking PEDs or not, she is/was a great competitor. I pity her tho when I see people posting her tweets shaming other athletes who tested positive prior to her own experience. You should just keep your lips sealed IMO

2 Likes

So what you are saying is start slamming the soy sauce

1 Like

Haha well it takes a bit more black magic (chemistry) to turn it into testosterone. But I would definitely advocate for the slamming of soy-sauce. Especially with sushi, or any rice dish. Or just about anything. I :face_with_symbols_over_mouth: love soy-sauce!!

2 Likes

I’d really love to believe her, but its far more believable that a 40-something athlete felt like they needed some “help” to remain competitive in the twilight of their career than this being a false positive or honest mistake.

3 Likes

Better make sure its small batch individually labelled non GMO soy sauce so you don’t get popped

image

4 Likes

Money, probably.

Betsema was born in '93, Compton in '78.

Compton probably tapped out early in her case to preserve finances. Why spend 6 figures in legal fees to reduce, but not eliminate, a ban when you’re already about to retire? Won’t make a damn bit of difference to her reputation - a ban’s a ban. Betsema has many years left to keep racing and making some $.

I don’t know anything about Katie Compton, but it sounds like she might be a tightwad, and maybe that’s why she tested positive to begin with (cheap doctor/DIY?). Tyler Hamilton’s 2012 book revealed how important finances mattered in the world of doping. Lance never tested positive after '99, while almost everyone else did.

My understanding is that Betsema was able to make a case for inadvertently ingesting a banned substance, while Compton was not.

2 Likes

Yup. Betsema was able to demonstrate that it was indeed a tainted supplement that caused the positive, and as I understand it that is the reason for the shorter suspension. I also think her 2 positive tests were close together, and presumed to be from the same source.
Katie has been unable to provide the tainted supplement to demonstrate that it is the source of her positive. In either case, the athlete is held responsible, but actually demonstrating that it was in fact a supplement leads to a lower penalty.

1 Like

Thanks for the Twitter link. Good explanation of this.

I have two thoughts on this.

  1. You try to prove what you may have eaten 5-months prior that could have contained a steroid. Everyone here keeping a sample of every piece of meat or meat containing product just in case you get a positive test in a 12-month period? I feel for her, I know someone who had this exact same situation happen to them as an athlete and I know for absolute certain they were clean. It is a no win situation and you feel absolutely helpless.

  2. It’s also hard to feel sorry for her when she has multiple examples of jumping on the bandwagon that someone was a doper for the exact same situation she now finds herself in. Isn’t there a saying about glass houses and throwing stones?

3 Likes

You know someone who ate meat that contained a substance/s that got them busted? Can you share any other details?

It’s about time that supplement companies were regulated like pharmaceuticals. Cut out all the cowboys with licencing and stricter standards

7 Likes

Yes I do. In short they ate a dish provided while on a trip racing which contained trace amounts of a banned substance. They ended up testing positive and later being exonerated. Unfortunately the quick judgement by people with no context is pervasive and I’m sure people still question whether they were doping.

There are many substances that any level of them in your system equals a ban. There are many products, and countries that don’t produce meat the same way they do in the US and you can end up with a trace amount of a product. The zero tolerance policy I think has caused more than one athlete to test positive who was clean and ate some sort of product that had the substance in it without their knowledge.

2 Likes

Interesting - I was not aware of this type of issue specifically - quick google brings this up for example.

It seems like with the clenbuterol in certain beef issue specifically, a finding along the lines of “no fault” may be issued, provided that evidence can be provided by the accused.

For all the top level pros in various sports who may be wrongly accused due to an issue like this, I hope they are able to provide proof of such an inadvertent cause.

You can thank Orrin Hatch (and Tom Harkin to a lesser degree) for that particular can of worms…at least if you are in the US. The DHSEA legislation back in 94 deregulated the supplement industry and removed FDA oversight. It has been the Wild West in supplements after that…

6 Likes

The link I provided above about Brady shows it’s happened with pharmaceuticals recently. Of course supplements are far less regulated and mistakes are going to happen with meds.

1 Like

A general question to those more informed about supplements and/or involved in professional athletics…

Is the “Informed Choice” list of products too restrictive? Can’t an athlete just stick to those items, in order to eliminate the fears of getting dinged for a contaminated supp?

I can see the desire to try products/brands not participating in that program, in order to take the latest-greatest, or some unique product in order to get an edge.