Mountain Bike Reviews Forum banner
1 - 20 of 39 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,216 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·

·
Registered
Joined
·
514 Posts
I read that earlier. I don’t know what to think of that, but you’d think the Dr. would know better than to prescribe and or apply a masking agent.

It makes you think the rider was doping...

Anyway, don’t all racers dope?

That’s the problem/perception.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,262 Posts
I read that earlier. I don't know what to think of that, but you'd think the Dr. would know better than to prescribe and or apply a masking agent.

It makes you think the rider was doping...

Anyway, don't all racers dope?

That's the problem/perception.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I dunno. A volunteer Dr. in a forest with a patient with a serious infection and no cell coverage. Even if a prohibited substance, isn't a guys health (and possible amputation if not treated) more important than the anti-doping "code."
 

·
since 4/10/2009
Joined
·
34,314 Posts
I dunno. A volunteer Dr. in a forest with a patient with a serious infection and no cell coverage. Even if a prohibited substance, isn't a guys health (and possible amputation if not treated) more important than the anti-doping "code."
this is where I stand on it.

IMO, the UCI could have been a bit more lenient. Nobody is denying anything and the story totally checks.

But I get it. He took this drug for his infection that has been used as a masking agent. Which means he could have taken a performance enhancing drug at the time and possibly avoided a positive detection for that.

I don't fault the doctor. Those anti-doping restrictions are huge and complicated. A volunteer doctor isn't going to have the whole list of banned substances committed to memory. Shoot, doctors have to look stuff up ALL the time related to medications, and if they're dealing with a condition they don't see often enough, they may not even have the names of the drugs they need to use committed to memory yet.

The situation presents its own wrinkles, too. The doctor had a choice to prescribe more aggressive medications or evac Martin to get him other, more aggressive treatment. Maybe if he'd been able to look up the banned substances list to confirm Probenecid was on the list, Martin would have insisted upon the more expensive/complicated evac, because he was clearly concerned about banned medications. But, nope.

Maybe it means that these volunteer race docs should have a printed list of the banned drugs in the future if they'll be in a place with no access to the internet? That wasn't stated anywhere....but it sorta seems implied.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
18,549 Posts
The medical management choices are a bit different than we'd see here in the USA, and it does bring up some questions. I wonder why he sutured closed an infected wound? If the wound was limb-threatening then I wonder why they didn't send him to the hospital to debride it in the O.R. then follow up with IV antibiotics? Probenecid is usually used as a gout medication, and the article states he prescribed it two days later. Wouldn't he have returned to a place with internet access by then, or was he still out at the race venue? I think IV antibiotics and surgical debridement is what would've happened stateside. That's interesting.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,710 Posts
Easy to blame the UCI on this one. But the fault on this one is somewhere else.

Every high level cyclist is given an anti-doping course from the UCI that there are suppose to take. One the things they learn is how to check products:

go to www.globaldro.com enter Probenecid and it is very clearly prohibited both in and out of competition.

In the same course they also learn the process of applying for TUE. The key thing is to apply for the TUE and immediately upon being given the medicine. Follow the proper channels and the TUE process works well. Trying to get it backdated after a positive test, not going to happen.

Somebody on Martin's end dropped the ball big time. The UCI is actually being pretty easy on him.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,216 Posts
Discussion Starter · #10 ·
I guess my real question is what does the UCI actually add to MTB or BMX? It seems like EWS was growing really well before the UCI got involved. And it is just hilarious to me that the spandex wearing UCI is involved in freestyle BMX.
 

·
Formerly of Kent
Joined
·
13,078 Posts
Martin Maes received a 90 day ban for using a drug to combat prevent infection to a wound that the doctor described a life or limb threatening.

https://www.pinkbike.com/news/marti...rotorua-and-tasmania-receives-90-day-ban.html

I bet if he was a roadie he would have got a pass.

Can the UCI just gtfo of MTB (and BMX too)?
No, a "roadie" wouldn't have gotten a pass.

https://cyclingtips.com/2014/10/sai...mpey-probenecid-case-wont-be-appealed-to-cas/

Also, if Maes had a wound that was life or limb threatening, he shouldn't have raced not one, but two EWS races. He tested positive at Rotorua AND Tasmania.
 

·
Up In Smoke
Dirt Roadë
Joined
·
3,281 Posts
I guess my real question is what does the UCI actually add to MTB or BMX? It seems like EWS was growing really well before the UCI got involved. And it is just hilarious to me that the spandex wearing UCI is involved in freestyle BMX.
UCI would bring an official World Championship race and possibly a spot in the Olympics for Enduro.
 

·
since 4/10/2009
Joined
·
34,314 Posts
The medical management choices are a bit different than we'd see here in the USA, and it does bring up some questions. I wonder why he sutured closed an infected wound? If the wound was limb-threatening then I wonder why they didn't send him to the hospital to debride it in the O.R. then follow up with IV antibiotics? Probenecid is usually used as a gout medication, and the article states he prescribed it two days later. Wouldn't he have returned to a place with internet access by then, or was he still out at the race venue? I think IV antibiotics and surgical debridement is what would've happened stateside. That's interesting.
It wasn't infected when he sutured it closed.

My understanding from the article and the posted letter from the doctor is that on the recheck (when the infection was first discovered) 2 days after the injury was initially treated, sending him to the hospital for their treatment protocol would have required a costly evac procedure, as they were still out in the boonies. The doctor stated further that in the absence of any additional info about banned drugs (due to no cell reception/internet), he felt that his protocol was at least as effective as what the hospital would do, anyway (with IV antibiotics). In his letter, he stated that he would do what he did again given the same situation.

It sounded like the race in which this occurred was a multi-day event and the initial laceration happened fairly early. It was cleaned up, sutured, and Maes was given prophylactic antibiotics. But because the race was really muddy, the wound got contaminated and infected in spite of the antibiotics. Seems to me like some kind of waterproof dressing would have been a good idea, but what do I know, I only have Wilderness First Aid training. Either way, after 2 days, the wound had become infected (must have been a bad one if the doctor was worried about loss of the limb) and it needed additional, more aggressive treatment. The doctor was equipped to treat it a little more aggressively than he had before (with a higher dose of antibiotics and some additional drugs) and opted to do so rather than calling for an evac.

What you say about what would have happened stateside is probably true. Partly because except for a few places, getting him to a hospital would probably have been a bit easier. But, there's a reason why the race in question had multiple doctors on hand with the ability to treat something like this without an evac in the first place.
 

·
Formerly of Kent
Joined
·
13,078 Posts
I dunno. A volunteer Dr. in a forest with a patient with a serious infection and no cell coverage. Even if a prohibited substance, isn't a guys health (and possible amputation if not treated) more important than the anti-doping "code."
A "severe infection". Apparently so severe that he was able to win not one, but two EWS races. After both of which he tested positive.

If his health is at risk, he shouldn't have been racing until he was free and clear of infection.

The fact that multiple people in this thread believe this story is mind blowing to me.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,044 Posts
A "severe infection". Apparently so severe that he was able to win not one, but two EWS races. After both of which he tested positive.

If his health is at risk, he shouldn't have been racing until he was free and clear of infection.

The fact that multiple people in this thread believe this story is mind blowing to me.
Not sure what to believe exactly but I am surprised he got caught so red handed if he indeed was knowingly doing something against the rules. How often are the athletes tested? Every round or is more random?
 

·
Formerly of Kent
Joined
·
13,078 Posts
Not sure what to believe exactly but I am surprised he got caught so red handed if he indeed was knowingly doing something against the rules. How often are the athletes tested? Every round or is more random?
Not sure about EWS, but on the road:

If you win, you get tested, plus some randoms. They also do targeted testing. And, they (National anti-doping orgs) also do plenty of out of competition testing.

If you are taking a drug to prevent loss of limb or life, you shouldn't be racing. Full stop.

Given that LMN's wife has worn the rainbow stripes not once but twice, and has an Olympic bronze, he might be able to shine a bit more light on this.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,216 Posts
Discussion Starter · #17 ·
UCI would bring an official World Championship race and possibly a spot in the Olympics for Enduro.
Why can't someone else put on an event and call it a world championship?

So you get to deal with another corrupt organization (IOC) yay!
 

·
Your bike sucks
Joined
·
2,478 Posts
A "severe infection". Apparently so severe that he was able to win not one, but two EWS races. After both of which he tested positive.

If his health is at risk, he shouldn't have been racing until he was free and clear of infection.

The fact that multiple people in this thread believe this story is mind blowing to me.
Granted there's probably a bit of puffery in the TUE application but the original treatment for an infection is nothing to mess around with esp. in the bush.

I've got a pretty strict attitude about TUEs and how they should be applied. But this case reads more of "reasonable initial treatment - failure to follow-up on the team's part - team working the TUE to correct their mess-up - UCI/WADA saying "umm no you cannot do that post-adverse-finding"... and leveling it a procedural infraction.

Basically, negligence on the riders/team part. UCI needs to enforce a penalty at the very least to adhere to objectivity and not undermine the process/authority with selective application and subjectivity.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
18,549 Posts
It wasn't infected when he sutured it closed.
Suturing a contaminated wound closed will trap bacteria and lead to infection, which might've been what happened. You want to leave contaminated wounds open to drain, but perhaps that doctor felt he had debrided it adequately out in the woods? Or, perhaps he sutured it loosely so it could drain. Only he knows.

"Martin had sustained an approximately 5 centimeter long vertically orientated burst type laceration to his lower leg. There was significant soft tissue damage, and the wound was grossly contaminated (conditions were particularly muddy that day) I irrigated and debrided the wound extensively, applied a topical antiseptic solution, and sutured the skin using 4 x interrupted sutures."

My understanding from the article and the posted letter from the doctor is that on the recheck (when the infection was first discovered) 2 days after the injury was initially treated, sending him to the hospital for their treatment protocol would have required a costly evac procedure, as they were still out in the boonies.
If a wound is limb-threatening then I'd evacuate and go to the hospital, cost be damned, not continue racing.

The doctor stated further that in the absence of any additional info about banned drugs (due to no cell reception/internet), he felt that his protocol was at least as effective as what the hospital would do, anyway (with IV antibiotics). In his letter, he stated that he would do what he did again given the same situation.
That would not be the standard of care here, but there are geographical differences.

It sounded like the race in which this occurred was a multi-day event and the initial laceration happened fairly early. It was cleaned up, sutured, and Maes was given prophylactic antibiotics. But because the race was really muddy, the wound got contaminated and infected in spite of the antibiotics. Seems to me like some kind of waterproof dressing would have been a good idea, but what do I know, I only have Wilderness First Aid training. Either way, after 2 days, the wound had become infected (must have been a bad one if the doctor was worried about loss of the limb) and it needed additional, more aggressive treatment. The doctor was equipped to treat it a little more aggressively than he had before (with a higher dose of antibiotics and some additional drugs) and opted to do so rather than calling for an evac.

What you say about what would have happened stateside is probably true. Partly because except for a few places, getting him to a hospital would probably have been a bit easier. But, there's a reason why the race in question had multiple doctors on hand with the ability to treat something like this without an evac in the first place.
Here in the States someone with a limb or life threatening infection would likely have been airlifted and taken to a hospital operating room. Maybe they didn't or don't have that option there?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,801 Posts
A "severe infection". Apparently so severe that he was able to win not one, but two EWS races. After both of which he tested positive.

If his health is at risk, he shouldn't have been racing until he was free and clear of infection.

The fact that multiple people in this thread believe this story is mind blowing to me.
From what I read in the doctor's note the infection was something if UNTREATED could result in risk to the limb. I am not a doctor, but infections can be nasty things and they need to be treated fast. If you delay in applying antibiotics or if they are not effective it gets progressively worse. So at the time of application of antibiotics they person may be feeling fine with no issues other than some localized redness, but if you don't treat it fast it get beyond the point of safe simple treatment. So given all this sounds like the doctor did the right thing to address the infection and allow the rider to keep functioning as normal. Clearly he did go foul of UCI rules, but having personally been in the hospital for 4 days due to an infection I say it was a good choice.

My situation was not a cut, but saddle sore that closed up and got infected. It had to be surgically drained and I was out for 5 weeks waiting for it heal. I would have been nice to get quick antibiotics to prevent the cost and recovery time related to hospitalization.
 
1 - 20 of 39 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top