Talk:Drugs banned from the Olympics/Draft

Should this be titled Performance enhancing drugs? It's not just the Olympics that bans them. Chris Day 12:51, 4 June 2008 (CDT)

These are not all performance enhancing drugs. Some are banned because they lead to athletes injuring themselves, for example. It could be called Drugs banned from international sporting competitions, but that is unwieldy. I created it for the Olympics themed write-a-thon, thus the name. Perhaps Drugs banned by the World Anti-Doping agency, but that name is really long also. The current title is technically correct, but the same page could be a catalog under the World Anti-Doping Agency article as well??? I should make a redirect from Drugs banned at the Olympics too, I suppose. I might search under that title. David E. Volk 14:31, 27 June 2008 (CDT)

Nominated for approval

I have just nominated this article for approval. I would like to have the main author add one more redirect, namely "Drugs banned by the Olympics". Milton Beychok 19:12, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Milton. I made the suggested redirect. David E. Volk 20:15, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Re co-approval

I can co-approve this article, but believe it could use a few edits to render it both more user friendly and more informative, the former by defining certain words, the latter by adding more explanations why certain drugs banned, i.e., some more mechanistic explanations.

Some items that caught my attention:

Intro: define ‘doping’

Banned androgenic agents: consider reversing order of first and second sentences

In respect of the lists of banned androgenic steroids: define words ‘exogenous’ and ‘endogenous’

Paragraph on blood doping should have subheader; otherwise out of place’

Hormones and related substances: first sentence should start with word ‘certain’, and should define ‘peptide’

Beta-2 agonists: should say why banned, physiological mechanism.

Hormone antagonists and modulators: Needs some physiology (why ban aromatase inhibitors?)

Diuretics and masking agents: not clear re ‘masking agent’ versus ‘diuretic’

“The cannabinoids marijuana and hashish are also banned.” Why?

Why are glucocorticoids and beta blockers banned?

Anthony.Sebastian 15:22, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Anthony, I have addressed most of your notes, but no one knows why the performance non-enhancing marijuana is banned, and I am not sure why beta-blockers are banned. They help reduce anxiety? Lower blood pressure? David E. Volk 20:49, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

David, looks good. I don't believe ingested testosterone makes it into the body, so I changed "ingesting it" to "administering it". Re marijuana, I do not know either. I will tell Joe to put me down for co-approval. Very nice article. Anthony.Sebastian 00:15, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Beta-blockers reduce tremor for shooting and archery. For other sports, they might well be performance decreasing.

I can't think of what performance cannabinoids could improve, eating not being an Olympic sport. Glucocorticoids are banned because they might mask a musculoskeletal injury or other inflammation; I believe inhaled corticosteroids for verified respiratory disease are now allowed. Howard C. Berkowitz 00:39, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Approval on the 4th? Many changes have been made

Hi, Milton, I'm over in Oakland but trying to do my job on a friend's computer. Approval date is the 4th. But there have been *many* changes to the article since you nominated the version of May 27th. Please update your approval to the *very* last change, or postpone things for a while. Or tell me that you absolutely, positively give your blessings to some particular version. Thanks! Hayford Peirce 04:04, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi, Hayford. Now that Anthony Sebastian has signed the Metadata template to signify his co-approval, I just updated the version to be approved on the metadata template to the latest version as of this morning.

As far as I am concerned, I am still nominating the article for approval on June 4th. Since Anthony Sebastian just signed the Metadata template this morning, I assume that he also still approves the article. Regards, Milton Beychok 15:09, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Okay, so I'll do the latest that I find, which right now is the May 31st by David Volk, who corrected a typo. Unless I hear to the contrary from you before tomorrow. Hayford Peirce 15:50, 3 June 2009 (UTC)