Mariem Alaoui Selsouli - Tests Positive - OUT of Olympics

A Moroccan who's sponsored by Nike and has a prior?

This bust is even more of a shocker than that time a guy was killed by one of his pets and investigators determined the culprit was neither the Boston Terrier, the box turtle, the hamster nor the budgie. It turned out to be (get this) the 15-foot-long King Cobra of all things.

Haji wrote:

Per capita, the U.S. has the cleanest track & field team in the world. (That is a fact!)

No, that title would probably go to a country like Japan that has no athletes serving doping bans.

No wonder that track and field is just about dead as a spectator sport in this country (outside of Eugene). I'm surprised there are any clean athletes who are willing to compete at the international level. It's hard to do well now without questions being raised. The OG 1500 in particular will have no claim to legitimacy this year when so many runners have unaccountably lowered their times just prior to the Games. But there are plenty of other events whose results can be questioned - even a miraculous runner like Bolt will have his efforts tarnished (and please let him be clean).

"Probably because lasix is a very "strong"/effective diuretic, while acetazolamide has such a weak diuretic effect that its primary use is for non-diuresis (altitude sickness, glaucoma, pseudotumor, etc)."

-i think I expressed myself poorly, jerkstore. Though you are somewhat correct in your facts (though im certainly not an md, i would assume that the diuretic effect is what is relied upon to reduce "pressure" of various sorts in your aforementioned maladies), what I was referring to was the fact that lasix is easily detected in the system with the current tests. Acetazolamide, for whatever reason, is more difficult in detection, despite having almost a half life that is twice as long as that of lasix. It also alkalinizes the urine, instead of acidifying the urine as lasix does- this is also another drawback when attempting to cover tests with acetazolamide (and its derivatives) when compared to lasix, for instance. Yet another diuretic that is cheap, but rarely used is hydrochlorothiazide. It seems to cause more dilation of vessels and possibly because of this, decreases cardiac output slightly more than the others. I believe a Russian rider (Ukranian?) was tapped for this in last year's Tdf. Lastly, I also misspoke regarding lasix in an earlier post. I said that lasix works at the distal convoluted tubule of the nephron...I think that is wrong...i believe it is hydrochlorothiazide that works there. It has been a few years, and I've really done my best to forget that portion of my life.

Once a doper wrote:I said that lasix works at the distal convoluted tubule of the nephron...I think that is wrong...i believe it is hydrochlorothiazide that works there. It has been a few years, and I've really done my best to forget that portion of my life.

I was shocked to find that there is something called a distal convoluted tubule of the nephron.

Maybe once a doper knows what he's talking about.

TrackCoach wrote:

Per capita, the U.S. has the cleanest track & field team in the world. (That is a fact!)

Really?

Another Drug Cheat OUT wrote:

From Twitter:

Lily_Partridge

Mariem Alaoui Selsouli (MAR) will miss London Olympics as she's tested positive for furosemide at the DL in Paris. What a SUPRISE! #lifeban

We saw it coming.

It was too obvious.

Why would a top athlete mess around with diuretics? Aren't you just begging to be caught -- hoping not to get a random test? Do athletes have a way around the problem of random testing?

-i think I expressed myself poorly, jerkstore. Though you are somewhat correct in your facts (though im certainly not an md, i would assume that the diuretic effect is what is relied upon to reduce "pressure" of various sorts in your aforementioned maladies), what I was referring to was the fact that lasix is easily detected in the system with the current tests.

I get the feeling that there is some common knowledge that I missed out there... how does this diuretic enhance performance? It acidifies the urine? Is it used as a masking agent, or does it directly enhance performance somehow? Thanks.

Ho Hum wrote:

Why would a top athlete mess around with diuretics? Aren't you just begging to be caught -- hoping not to get a random test? Do athletes have a way around the problem of random testing?

Those diuretics are called masking agents because they make you pee a lot and get the evidence out of your system before they can test for it.

Selsouli is the second athlete caught in the last week (Frank Schleck) for this very thing. Every clean athlete in an endurance sport trying to avoid dehydration is going to run right out and take something that's going to make them MORE dehydrated. uh huh.

coach d wrote:

Every clean athlete in an endurance sport trying to avoid dehydration is going to run right out and take something that's going to make them MORE dehydrated. uh huh.

Exactly what I was wondering... the only thing I could come up with would be temporary, significant weight loss before an event (800m, 1500m) short enough that the effects of dehydration would be outweighed by the benefits of light weight.

Wow, does that really work? Pee like crazy and the markers go out of your system? I'm glad WADA or whoever did this testing knows enough to look for this sort of thing. It's maddening to think others get away with this.

Whoever predicted Shelly Ann Fraser's 10.7-mid, man that's chilling stuff. I wish I could say that watching the final for a number like that enhanced my enjoyment. But instead I get to sit there powerlessly, wondering who the first clean athlete is in the final (if any? Or is that too cynical?)

Well I understand that, it just seems like a big risk to take. Unless you know when you're going to be randomly tested, aren't you just hoping you don't get caught on the couple of days or however long the diuretic stays in your system?

After her 3.56 she was jumping with joy pretending to be genuinely surprised by her WL. Truly sick stuff! No sub 4minute in 2011 and now we have 8 under 4 mins. Something needs to be done before this turns into a freak show

Ho Hum wrote:

Well I understand that, it just seems like a big risk to take. Unless you know when you're going to be randomly tested, aren't you just hoping you don't get caught on the couple of days or however long the diuretic stays in your system?

That's the deal of course, and it looks like they miscalculated a bit. But if you think you might get caught, I believe you would want to get caught for the masking agent as the penalty is less.

If you're Jenny or Morgan, that's one down and two to go (the two Epopians).

But let's face it, this should be NO surprise to anyone here. There were big threads about Selsouli before. Never before 4 in the past, just comes off a doping ban, and suddenly a 4 second PR. I mean, is it Mark Block, Regina Jacobs, or Victor Conte providing this stuff?

Does Jenny get her new medal in London...or does she have to wait 6 months for the doping results are in?

Once a doper wrote:Acetazolamide, for whatever reason, is more difficult in detection, despite having almost a half life that is twice as long as that of lasix. It also alkalinizes the urine, instead of acidifying the urine as lasix does- this is also another drawback when attempting to cover tests with acetazolamide (and its derivatives) when compared to lasix, for instance

i doubt any acetazolamide/derivative is harder to detect than frusemide & ph differences in urine make no difference

all wada need is a sample of the drug ( easy as this is a standard, widely prescribed drug ), feed it to healthy test subject & see what new metabolites turn up in the urine

rpt. this procedure & on few different test subjects & reliable chromatography profile for metabolites for this drug will be obtained

as another poster said, acetazolamide is a piss-weak diuretic, good for nothing in terms of doping & no one who seriously wants to dope woud be using this rubbish

if you want a diuretic you don't use these or slightly more potent ( but still pretty piss-weak ) thiazide derivatives like bendro/indapamide/hydrochlorothiazide, you use bumetanide/ethacrynic acid or furosemide

Nothing behind my back;

this looks good to me & usual reason to use it

if you have a 120 pund 4'00 gal & she loses 3 pounds, then her expected time coud be

~ 3'57.98

it woud offer ~ 2s benefit

never thought masking agent is much of a use

it might excrete illicit drug metabolites bit quicker & reduce detection window from a week to maybe 4 or 5 days, but you will get done for the diuretic +ve

i don't believe this at all

dehydration woud raise your haematocrit & in essence reduce your own endogenous epo production

& the sensitivity of tests nowdays is so great, no amount of dehydration is going to stop detection

still woudn't work

you'd still have chromatography profile of metabolites which woud be used as basis of +ve test

It's a waste as she has one of the best running forms ever seen.

All I can tell you is what was current as of 2004. Remember that chromatography has potential limits on titers of metabolites- whether they be those of enzymes, various proteins, etc.