[kemau]

Doug Barron, who 10 days ago became the first player to run afoul of the PGA Tour's new drug-testing measures and was dealt a one-year suspension, filed a civil suit against the PGA Tour on Thursday.

The suit, which was filed in Shelby County (Memphis), Tenn., seeks monetary damages and a temporary restraining order against the Tour that would allow Barron to play in the second stage of the PGA Tour Qualifying Tournament in Houston, Nov. 18-21. A preliminary hearing, which will include Barron's attorney, Jeffrey S. Rosenblum, and representatives of the PGA Tour, is scheduled for 9 a.m. Friday in Chancery Court in Memphis.

Continued Here

[OpusX20]

I saw that, but I don't fully understand what the suit is about. Is he saying that he took the banned substances, but shouldn't face penalties because other folks have been given exemptions for the same substances? Is he saying that he switched to a conforming beta-blocker before the test and the test is flawed? Is he saying that the banned substances were to treat a legitimate medical need and should not be subject to the testing guidelines? Maybe I'm just missing it or maybe we will get some more information on the specifics of the suit. Does anyone have any insights?

[samphillips9]

Haha, maybe now the guy can win some money.

[bobmarley]

samphillips9, on Nov 12 2009, 08:22 PM, said:

Haha, maybe now the guy can win some money.

[fore_life]

hahahahah ZING!

[marrigo]

He's claiming he has been prescribed beta blockers for years due to anxiety attacks and a mitral valve prolapse. In addition he suffers from low testosterone (normal 300-1200; his was 78) that have caused fatigue and depression in the past, and has also been prescribed testosterone shots once a month (Shaun Michael has the same disorder apparently). He applied for an exemption and was denied and told to wean himself off the drugs.

[PreppySlapCut]

I was going to bring up Shaun Micheel. He was diagnosed as having "Low T," was actually sponsored for a while by the pharma company who made his treatments, if I'm not mistaken.

[OpusX20]

marrigo, on Nov 13 2009, 08:56 AM, said:

He's claiming he has been prescribed beta blockers for years due to anxiety attacks and a mitral valve prolapse. In addition he suffers from low testosterone (normal 300-1200; his was 78) that have caused fatigue and depression in the past, and has also been prescribed testosterone shots once a month (Shaun Michael has the same disorder apparently). He applied for an exemption and was denied and told to wean himself off the drugs.

That makes more sense. Thanks for the info.

[mat562]

Best of luck to him. Obviously I'm not fully au fait with all the facts, but it sounds suspiciously like he may be the first of the predictable casualties of a policy that very much risks lumping prescription medication users in with the steroid gobbers and penalising them both the same.

I dare say the expert witnesses in medical matters and human rights legislation will have some fun with that 'wean yourself off them' instruction from the tour when it hits the courtroom.

[u05wh2]

NPVWhiz - I agree with a lot of your points, but to play devil's advocate, testosterone levels are something which is determined by genetics. If you start saying it's OK to manipulate one genetic feature, where do you draw the line? Would it be right for someone who's predisposed to getting bad nerves to take beta-blockers before a big round even though the beta blockers might actually give them an advantage rather than levlling the field? Wht about physical characteristics?

I would be surprised if the amount of test that this guy is getting takes him to normal levels - from memory a typical male will produce about 40mg of test naturally a week and a fairly standard TRT dose is 250mg every three weeks which works out to be more than double. That's going to give him an advantange.

Edit - looks like that post has been deleted now.

[NPVWhiz]

u05wh2, on Nov 13 2009, 03:27 PM, said:

NPVWhiz - I agree with a lot of your points, but to play devil's advocate, testosterone levels are something which is determined by genetics. If you start saying it's OK to manipulate one genetic feature, where do you draw the line? Would it be right for someone who's predisposed to getting bad nerves to take beta-blockers before a big round even though the beta blockers might actually give them an advantage rather than levlling the field? Wht about physical characteristics?

I would be surprised if the amount of test that this guy is getting takes him to normal levels - from memory a typical male will produce about 40mg of test naturally a week and a fairly standard TRT dose is 250mg every three weeks which works out to be more than double. That's going to give him an advantange.

Edit - looks like that post has been deleted now.

Sorry about that. My earlier post argued that if Barron's physicians could show blood work that substantiated the idea that the testosterone levels were just being brought into the normal range, then how could that be construed as being a performance enhancing advantage?

I suppose the Tour might trot out a test that showed the levels up above the normal range, but I don't know how easy it is to reach an equilibrium in the normal range with a once a day application via gel. Maybe a patch is more predictable, but it would seem like a situation where the tour can't just go case by case.


It wouldn't be right in view for a player to treat competitive nerves with a beta blocker, but a physician wouldn't prescribe it for that. Competitive nerves isn't a medical diagnosis.

But suppose an otherwise talented golfer is has socially impairing shyness, to the point where their heart rate climbs and their hands sweat in routine social situations. And it gets worse when they're in stressful situations (like competitive golf rounds).

If a physician prescribed a medication that helped alleviate these medical condition related symptoms, and they conferred some benefit on the course as well, can it really be argued that there is some level of performance enhancement? Having that type of condition is already performance impairing, so any treatment would just be helping the patient back into a normal range, not boosting their abilities into an otherwise unobtainable range.

[hef63303]

What ever he has been taking has not been much help!

[Pepperturbo]

At first I felt bad for the guy thinking he was unlucky; now I am not so sure. Whether he knew his med's had banded drugs in them or not, the fact remains he took them and tested positive. Anyone with character that makes an honest mistake accepts the consequences; they don't react with a civil suite.

Ponder this... He played eight full seasons on the tour, with his best finish a tie for third at the Byron Nelson Championship in 2006.

OWGR Position 1113
Total World Ranking Points 1.21
Current Divisor (Number of Events - 40 Minimum) 40
Official World Golf Ranking Points Average 0.03


I read that to say his pro golfing career hasn't been going all that well. What if a court case was viewed as an ace in the hole.

Every pro athlete today is aware of banded drugs, and they know the tour is randomly testing. Every adult touring pro that takes drugs would know to check to insure compliance. Could he have known about the substances and illegally benefited on purpose figuring if he's tested, caught and suspended he could possibly collect a greater amount of $$$$$ in a civil suite vs. tour earnings. Surely his advisors and Doctors would know to verify; yet he's making it appear they were all blind to the possibilities.

[Mattro]

since his testosterone count is so low why not just go play on the LPGA his count has to be lower than a few of those beasts out there.

[dpb5031]

u05wh2, on Nov 13 2009, 03:27 PM, said:

NPVWhiz - I agree with a lot of your points, but to play devil's advocate, testosterone levels are something which is determined by genetics. If you start saying it's OK to manipulate one genetic feature, where do you draw the line? Would it be right for someone who's predisposed to getting bad nerves to take beta-blockers before a big round even though the beta blockers might actually give them an advantage rather than levlling the field? Wht about physical characteristics?

I would be surprised if the amount of test that this guy is getting takes him to normal levels - from memory a typical male will produce about 40mg of test naturally a week and a fairly standard TRT dose is 250mg every three weeks which works out to be more than double. That's going to give him an advantange.

Edit - looks like that post has been deleted now.

Blood cholesterol levels and a predisposition to heart disease are also largely determined by genetics. Would you want to prevent a player from taking Lipitor or another statin drug if it improved his health but might also lead to a more efficient delivery of oxygen to his muscles and thus increase his stamina late in a round?

I'm not being argumentative, just reinforcing the question you raise as to where to draw the line. No easy answers here...

Also, just because the treatment administers more than double the level of testosterone that is naturally produced, that does not mean that it is all assimilated and effectively utilized by the body.

[NPVWhiz]

I do agree that genetics and physical characteristics are certainly an important component of athletic competitiveness, and both are perfectly reasonable bases for celebrating talent.

But, when it comes to physical limitations, there are things a golfer can do to make up for a lack of size and strength (to a degree, and unfortunately less so these days of bomb and gouge).

That's why golf is a much more popular sport for spectators and TV viewers than is hammer throwing or dead lifting. The latter are displays of physical gifts and hard training (or in the former Soviet Union, innovation in synthetic hormone chemistry).

In golf, we still have a variety of approaches to the game that work. We have Justin Leonards and Zach Johnsons who are just as successful as Bubba Watsons and other bombers. The mental part of the game is a big component.

But when it comes to getting stronger, all the hard work in the world won't help you if you have a medical condition that pushes your testosterone levels down into an abnormally low range. I don't see any problem with guys being able to remedy a medical situation with technology, but I recognize the potential for abuse.

I just think the muscle building part is less of a threat to golf, just like it's less of a threat to Ping Pong players. When's the last time you saw a Ping Pong player sanctioned for performance enhancing drugs.

Players get cut like Camillo and Duval did, and it's questionable as to whether it really helps beyond a certain point.

Snead said he held the grip like he was holding a bird. As in, small bird, not Condor. How many top players have huge pectorals, and I'm talking muscle here, not just a 38 D cup physique.

Besides, you talk to the baseball guys, the hitters, and they'll tell you that the key to the long ball is the gluteus maximus (and I think at one point Tiger admitted in an interview that he was on to that). But I could slather on the T gel for months and I'm not ever going to have a major league muscular tail.

I just think Finchem's bar ought to be pretty high for denying someone a medical allowance for legitimate treatment of a bona fide medical condition. I'm not sure Memphis is the best place to try the case though.

[InTheHole]

I just don't see what right the PGA Tour has to say "wean yourself off the drugs." Are they arguing the medical diagnosis? Are they saying that athletes with certain medical conditions (thus requiring certain drugs) are not allowed to compete?

If my performance as a golfer is reduced because of a bad headache, isn't taking Excedrin before a round "performance enhancement?"

I play like crap when I'm hungry. Can I eat a sandwich?

Where do we draw the line?

I would never tell someone, sacrifice your health by getting off certain drugs, so you can play. In this case, these drugs are administered to bring him to a more or less "normal" level- to me, that's not performance enhancement. That's "normal performance."

Look at Eric Compton- was his performance enhanced by the use of a golf cart right after heart surgery? His doctors said he could play if he didn't have to walk the whole length of a golf course- if he had to walk the whole length he could have had heart problems (and die?). The PGA allowed him the use of a golf cart- no one questioned whether that was "performance enhancement." It's just what you do in that case.

I agree- no easy answers here- but that doesn't mean you cross the line either.

[NPVWhiz]

dpb5031, on Nov 13 2009, 04:26 PM, said:

u05wh2, on Nov 13 2009, 03:27 PM, said:

NPVWhiz - I agree with a lot of your points, but to play devil's advocate, testosterone levels are something which is determined by genetics. If you start saying it's OK to manipulate one genetic feature, where do you draw the line? Would it be right for someone who's predisposed to getting bad nerves to take beta-blockers before a big round even though the beta blockers might actually give them an advantage rather than levlling the field? Wht about physical characteristics?

I would be surprised if the amount of test that this guy is getting takes him to normal levels - from memory a typical male will produce about 40mg of test naturally a week and a fairly standard TRT dose is 250mg every three weeks which works out to be more than double. That's going to give him an advantange.

Edit - looks like that post has been deleted now.

Blood cholesterol levels and a predisposition to heart disease are also largely determined by genetics. Would you want to prevent a player from taking Lipitor or another statin drug if it improved his health but might also lead to a more efficient delivery of oxygen to his muscles and thus increase his stamina late in a round?

I'm not being argumentative, just reinforcing the question you raise as to where to draw the line. No easy answers here...

Also, just because the treatment administers more than double the level of testosterone that is naturally produced, that does not mean that it is all assimilated and effectively utilized by the body.

This was actually right along the lines of the post I deleted. It's the old barnyard argument that every condition is equal, but some conditions are more equal than others...

In some ways, it's a huge double standard. There are other drugs out there that players use to calm themselves or help clear their mind. How could that not enhance performance. I can tell you for certain that there are a number of players using
3-[(2S)-1-methylpyrrolidin-2-yl]pyridine for just that, and yet the Tour doesn't have any issue with that.

Some drugs are OK. Some aren't.

[PixlPutterman]

hef63303, on Nov 13 2009, 05:22 PM, said:

What ever he has been taking has not been much help!

LOL Thats the point. He was just trying to maintain a normal level of health.

[u05wh2]

NPVWhiz, on Nov 13 2009, 09:36 PM, said:

I just think the muscle building part is less of a threat to golf, just like it's less of a threat to Ping Pong players. When's the last time you saw a Ping Pong player sanctioned for performance enhancing drugs.

Players get cut like Camillo and Duval did, and it's questionable as to whether it really helps beyond a certain point.

Snead said he held the grip like he was holding a bird. As in, small bird, not Condor. How many top players have huge pectorals, and I'm talking muscle here, not just a 38 D cup physique.

Besides, you talk to the baseball guys, the hitters, and they'll tell you that the key to the long ball is the gluteus maximus (and I think at one point Tiger admitted in an interview that he was on to that). But I could slather on the T gel for months and I'm not ever going to have a major league muscular tail.

I've played golf at 175lbs and i'm playing now at 230 (at 6 feet 1) in pretty good condition and i'm starting to think about going back down to about 215 now i'm playing again regularly. I can't coil turn effectively any more as i've lost a bit of flexibility but having more power in the bigger muscle groups (lats, glutes) is advantageous. Tiger is probably a good example of the type of balance to strike.

I think the drugs that would be more important in golf are the ones that aid concentration or prevent nerves rather than anabolics.

[Bubbalongball]

This is absolutely retarted, Its GOLF, not one single drug will make a player, anything muscle enhancing or steroids or anything else make a man or woman play better, though it may make a guy hit the ball further he sure is hell isnt going to be able to hit the finesse shots or be a steady putter, drug testing in golf is a farce, if they want to make it a level playing field, then they must make it mandatory that every player hits the weights and practice 3 diferent times a day and also eat right like Tiger, its the only way to make the PGA competitive for all.

[Sean2]

PixlPutterman , on Nov 13 2009, 04:44 PM, said:

hef63303, on Nov 13 2009, 05:22 PM, said:

What ever he has been taking has not been much help!

LOL Thats the point. He was just trying to maintain a normal level of health.

Exactly. It's not like he has been taking the Tour by storm. Back off Finchem.

[Pepperturbo]

InTheHole, on Nov 13 2009, 03:39 PM, said:

I just don't see what right the PGA Tour has to say "wean yourself off the drugs." Are they arguing the medical diagnosis? Are they saying that athletes with certain medical conditions (thus requiring certain drugs) are not allowed to compete?

If my performance as a golfer is reduced because of a bad headache, isn't taking Excedrin before a round "performance enhancement?"

I play like crap when I'm hungry. Can I eat a sandwich?

Where do we draw the line?

I would never tell someone, sacrifice your health by getting off certain drugs, so you can play. In this case, these drugs are administered to bring him to a more or less "normal" level- to me, that's not performance enhancement. That's "normal performance."

Look at Eric Compton- was his performance enhanced by the use of a golf cart right after heart surgery? His doctors said he could play if he didn't have to walk the whole length of a golf course- if he had to walk the whole length he could have had heart problems (and die?). The PGA allowed him the use of a golf cart- no one questioned whether that was "performance enhancement." It's just what you do in that case.

I agree- no easy answers here- but that doesn't mean you cross the line either.

Your interpretation is a bit literal. Neither Aspirin nor Excedrin for a headache includes performance enhancing drugs like anabolic steroids or their precursors. I use to have a serious sinus condition and one of the drugs had minor steroids in it. If I were to be tested back then, it would have showed up as an illegal drug. The question then is am I taking it for a sinus condition or to improve my performance in some fashion.

My son is asthmatic... he carries an inhaler filled with steroids when he plays soccer. If he were a professional soccer player he would be considered using steroids because of his inhaler.

You probably aware but JIC: http://en.wikipedia....enhancing_drugs.

There's a basic performance level line for each professional sport. For golf aside from playing to a + being healthy enough to walk 18 holes and play the game could be viewed as starting point. Even though Compton played to a + he wasn't able to meet that basic performance criteria until they allow him to ride in a cart. Performance enhancement for him might be if his legs were replaced with bionics which would make his legs superior compared to all others in the field.

[dpb5031]

Pepperturbo, on Nov 13 2009, 06:46 PM, said:

InTheHole, on Nov 13 2009, 03:39 PM, said:

I just don't see what right the PGA Tour has to say "wean yourself off the drugs." Are they arguing the medical diagnosis? Are they saying that athletes with certain medical conditions (thus requiring certain drugs) are not allowed to compete?

If my performance as a golfer is reduced because of a bad headache, isn't taking Excedrin before a round "performance enhancement?"

I play like crap when I'm hungry. Can I eat a sandwich?

Where do we draw the line?

I would never tell someone, sacrifice your health by getting off certain drugs, so you can play. In this case, these drugs are administered to bring him to a more or less "normal" level- to me, that's not performance enhancement. That's "normal performance."

Look at Eric Compton- was his performance enhanced by the use of a golf cart right after heart surgery? His doctors said he could play if he didn't have to walk the whole length of a golf course- if he had to walk the whole length he could have had heart problems (and die?). The PGA allowed him the use of a golf cart- no one questioned whether that was "performance enhancement." It's just what you do in that case.

I agree- no easy answers here- but that doesn't mean you cross the line either.

Your interpretation is a bit literal. Neither Aspirin nor Excedrin for a headache includes performance enhancing drugs like anabolic steroids or their precursors. I use to have a serious sinus condition and one of the drugs had minor steroids in it. If I were to be tested back then, it would have showed up as an illegal drug. The question then is am I taking it for a sinus condition or to improve my performance in some fashion.

My son is asthmatic... he carries an inhaler filled with steroids when he plays soccer. If he were a professional soccer player he would be considered using steroids because of his inhaler.

You probably aware but JIC: http://en.wikipedia....enhancing_drugs.

There's a basic performance level line for each professional sport. For golf aside from playing to a + being healthy enough to walk 18 holes and play the game could be viewed as starting point. Even though Compton played to a + he wasn't able to meet that basic performance criteria until they allow him to ride in a cart. Performance enhancement for him might be if his legs were replaced with bionics which would make his legs superior compared to all others in the field.

Actually, the steroids to which you refer are corticosteroids and would not be mistaken for anabolic steroids which are the type taken to build muscle and enhance performance:

http://arthritis.abo...olicsteroid.htm

[TimeToFly]

what does it mean by him "filing a restraining order" against the tour?

[ballshagger]

Beta blockers are so mainstream medical, I cant see how the tour can ban them. The steroid can also be a "mainstream" treatment. The idea that genetics plays into treatment is bogus in my opinion. Its more of being unlucky to have the same prescription medication that the tour banned.

[H.A. Kerr]

TimeToFly, on Nov 13 2009, 04:29 PM, said:

what does it mean by him "filing a restraining order" against the tour?

They've been drunk dialing him at all hours and have been seen parked outside his house playing Journey love ballads at an excessive volume. It really needs to stop.

[Australian_Blade]

The Tour told him months ago that he should not use the drugs correct?

Therefore he should have stopped taking them or tried an alternative route....If they tell you that it's on the no go list then it's a no go plain and simple.

JMO. As stated above I don't have all the facts, but it should be cut and dry if the drug he uses is on the list and if he can't live (literally) without it then he can't play on tour.

[glcoach]

I hope he sues....I hope he wins and puts corporate suit d!ckheads like Finchem in their place

[Golfer4Life]

It is obvious the drugs have not done anything for his game, I do hope they have improved his health, that is the most important thing.

The bottom line to me is, ban drugs+positive test= sanctions. But I guess we will have to wait for the lawsuit to take place and maybe we can get a bit more information on what is going on.

[Sawgrass]

FUBUKI4LIFE, on Nov 13 2009, 10:15 PM, said:

The Tour told him months ago that he should not use the drugs correct?

Therefore he should have stopped taking them or tried an alternative route....If they tell you that it's on the no go list then it's a no go plain and simple.

JMO. As stated above I don't have all the facts, but it should be cut and dry if the drug he uses is on the list and if he can't live (literally) without it then he can't play on tour.

I suspect it's not as simple as that. The Tour told Casey Martin he couldn't use a cart. Turned out they didn't have the right to tell him that because of a medical condition:

Golf News: - Posted 11th February 1998


Casey Martin wins right to use golf cart on US tour
Associated Press

Eugene, Ore. - A judge ruled today that Casey Martin can ride a golf cart on the pro tour, a landmark victory in the first case invoking federal disabilities laws to compete in a major sport.

U.S. Magistrate Thomas Coffin ruled that a golf course during a tournament is a place of public accommodation and is covered under the federal Americans With Disabilities Act.

He said Martin's lawyers proved the 25-year-old golfer is disabled and entitled to a reasonable accommodation -- which would include a cart.

[Australian_Blade]

Yes I guess we will see. As I said I don't have all the facts at all. Just my initial opinion on hearing the news.

I agree that his health is most important.

[u05wh2]

dpb5031, on Nov 14 2009, 12:26 AM, said:

Pepperturbo, on Nov 13 2009, 06:46 PM, said:

Your interpretation is a bit literal. Neither Aspirin nor Excedrin for a headache includes performance enhancing drugs like anabolic steroids or their precursors. I use to have a serious sinus condition and one of the drugs had minor steroids in it. If I were to be tested back then, it would have showed up as an illegal drug. The question then is am I taking it for a sinus condition or to improve my performance in some fashion.

My son is asthmatic... he carries an inhaler filled with steroids when he plays soccer. If he were a professional soccer player he would be considered using steroids because of his inhaler.

You probably aware but JIC: http://en.wikipedia....enhancing_drugs.

Actually, the steroids to which you refer are corticosteroids and would not be mistaken for anabolic steroids which are the type taken to build muscle and enhance performance:

http://arthritis.abo...olicsteroid.htm

x2 - cortisone injections are commonly given to soccer players/athletes with tendon or joint problems.

[monster]

The PGA Tour may have opened a can of worms that it wasn't expecting. If an exemption was granted to one player but not another for a similar medical condition then the tour is at risk of having a court throw out its entire testing program. I have administered drug testing programs and this is a very real possibility.

[Pepperturbo]

dpb5031, on Nov 13 2009, 06:26 PM, said:

Pepperturbo, on Nov 13 2009, 06:46 PM, said:

InTheHole, on Nov 13 2009, 03:39 PM, said:

I just don't see what right the PGA Tour has to say "wean yourself off the drugs." Are they arguing the medical diagnosis? Are they saying that athletes with certain medical conditions (thus requiring certain drugs) are not allowed to compete?

If my performance as a golfer is reduced because of a bad headache, isn't taking Excedrin before a round "performance enhancement?"

I play like crap when I'm hungry. Can I eat a sandwich?

Where do we draw the line?

I would never tell someone, sacrifice your health by getting off certain drugs, so you can play. In this case, these drugs are administered to bring him to a more or less "normal" level- to me, that's not performance enhancement. That's "normal performance."

Look at Eric Compton- was his performance enhanced by the use of a golf cart right after heart surgery? His doctors said he could play if he didn't have to walk the whole length of a golf course- if he had to walk the whole length he could have had heart problems (and die?). The PGA allowed him the use of a golf cart- no one questioned whether that was "performance enhancement." It's just what you do in that case.

I agree- no easy answers here- but that doesn't mean you cross the line either.

Your interpretation is a bit literal. Neither Aspirin nor Excedrin for a headache includes performance enhancing drugs like anabolic steroids or their precursors. I use to have a serious sinus condition and one of the drugs had minor steroids in it. If I were to be tested back then, it would have showed up as an illegal drug. The question then is am I taking it for a sinus condition or to improve my performance in some fashion.

My son is asthmatic... he carries an inhaler filled with steroids when he plays soccer. If he were a professional soccer player he would be considered using steroids because of his inhaler.

You probably aware but JIC: http://en.wikipedia....enhancing_drugs.

There's a basic performance level line for each professional sport. For golf aside from playing to a + being healthy enough to walk 18 holes and play the game could be viewed as starting point. Even though Compton played to a + he wasn't able to meet that basic performance criteria until they allow him to ride in a cart. Performance enhancement for him might be if his legs were replaced with bionics which would make his legs superior compared to all others in the field.

Actually, the steroids to which you refer are corticosteroids and would not be mistaken for anabolic steroids which are the type taken to build muscle and enhance performance:

http://arthritis.abo...olicsteroid.htm

u05wh2, on Nov 14 2009, 04:34 AM, said:

dpb5031, on Nov 14 2009, 12:26 AM, said:

Pepperturbo, on Nov 13 2009, 06:46 PM, said:

Your interpretation is a bit literal. Neither Aspirin nor Excedrin for a headache includes performance enhancing drugs like anabolic steroids or their precursors. I use to have a serious sinus condition and one of the drugs had minor steroids in it. If I were to be tested back then, it would have showed up as an illegal drug. The question then is am I taking it for a sinus condition or to improve my performance in some fashion.

My son is asthmatic... he carries an inhaler filled with steroids when he plays soccer. If he were a professional soccer player he would be considered using steroids because of his inhaler.

You probably aware but JIC: http://en.wikipedia....enhancing_drugs.

Actually, the steroids to which you refer are corticosteroids and would not be mistaken for anabolic steroids which are the type taken to build muscle and enhance performance:

http://arthritis.abo...olicsteroid.htm

x2 - cortisone injections are commonly given to soccer players/athletes with tendon or joint problems.

Exactly right. I am not an MD, more germane not a professional athlete like Barron. My larger point was no matter what the physical condition, or the drug, drug contents can be confusing and could have a band substance in it. At the very least I would have it researched to be on the safe side. How is it in this day and age Barron didn't verify contents to insure he is in compliance with the rules as soon as the PGA announced testing.

[Onebulldogs]

As an attorney, this is my two cents analysis of the case (having done no legal research). I have, however, read Barron's complaint.

1. One poster asked about the restraining order. Barron wants the court to allow him to compete in Q-School.

Essentially a Temporary Restraining Order (aka "TRO) can be issued when the court finds the plaintiff is likely to win and would be irreparably harmed by waiting until the case is final. If it is granted, it does NOT mean the plaintiff will win, but the odds are in his favor. If it is not granted, it just means the plaintiff failed on one of the two criteria: likelihood of winning is very good OR irrepparable harm. IMHO - Barron will easily wiin the 2nd prong. The only issue will be how likely is Barron to win on the fist prong

2. Barron's legal case: Basically, Barron argues that he is entitled to a TUE under the ADA because he is disabled by his conditions. I will address them in turn:
a) Beta Blocker - Simply put, it is idiotic that the tour would not let him take them. He has been taking them since he was 18 and diagnosed with a serious medical (and life threatening) medical condition. Easily (and commonly) treated with beta blockers, they should be ashamed. I think Barron has a very good case on this issue. I give him a 90% chance of success.

b) Testosterone - Barron argues his low testosterone is a "disability." Frankly, I think his case is weak on this issue. Although a legitimate medical issue, low T would not normally be a "disability" as defined by the ADA. Under the ADA, a disability is an impairment that substantially limit a major life activity. Compounding the problemfor Barron, Testosterone really could be a perfomance enhancing drug. I give Barron a 50/50 shot at getting the TRO.

Ultimately, it appears the Tour drug program is fundamentllay flawed in that the process for approving a therapeutic use exemption appears bizarre. Furthermore, it has come out that the Tour has given itself unlimited discretion in handing out punishiments. Supposedly, players have not been suspended for taking recreational drugs and testing positive.

As more facts come out, I suspect the players are going to insist on modifications to the current program. It is unfair and arbitrary. For players with legitimate health problems, it may be dangerous.

[Onebulldogs]

FUBUKI4LIFE, on Nov 13 2009, 10:15 PM, said:

The Tour told him months ago that he should not use the drugs correct?

Therefore he should have stopped taking them or tried an alternative route....If they tell you that it's on the no go list then it's a no go plain and simple.

JMO. As stated above I don't have all the facts, but it should be cut and dry if the drug he uses is on the list and if he can't live (literally) without it then he can't play on tour.

Apparently, it would have been dangerous to quit the beta blockers cold turkey. Because he has a serious medical condition, they needed to "wean" him off them and replace them with another treatment.

The second issue is not true. As the Casey Martin case illustrated, the Tour is subject to the ADA. If someone is disabled (as defined by the ADA) and a drug will fix the problem, the Tour will be forced to allow that person to take the drug.

[ballshagger]

Onebulldogs, on Nov 14 2009, 08:35 PM, said:

As an attorney, this is my two cents analysis of the case (having done no legal research). I have, however, read Barron's complaint.

1. One poster asked about the restraining order. Barron wants the court to allow him to compete in Q-School.

Essentially a Temporary Restraining Order (aka "TRO) can be issued when the court finds the plaintiff is likely to win and would be irreparably harmed by waiting until the case is final. If it is granted, it does NOT mean the plaintiff will win, but the odds are in his favor. If it is not granted, it just means the plaintiff failed on one of the two criteria: likelihood of winning is very good OR irrepparable harm. IMHO - Barron will easily wiin the 2nd prong. The only issue will be how likely is Barron to win on the fist prong

2. Barron's legal case: Basically, Barron argues that he is entitled to a TUE under the ADA because he is disabled by his conditions. I will address them in turn:
a) Beta Blocker - Simply put, it is idiotic that the tour would not let him take them. He has been taking them since he was 18 and diagnosed with a serious medical (and life threatening) medical condition. Easily (and commonly) treated with beta blockers, they should be ashamed. I think Barron has a very good case on this issue. I give him a 90% chance of success.

b) Testosterone - Barron argues his low testosterone is a "disability." Frankly, I think his case is weak on this issue. Although a legitimate medical issue, low T would not normally be a "disability" as defined by the ADA. Under the ADA, a disability is an impairment that substantially limit a major life activity. Compounding the problemfor Barron, Testosterone really could be a perfomance enhancing drug. I give Barron a 50/50 shot at getting the TRO.

Ultimately, it appears the Tour drug program is fundamentllay flawed in that the process for approving a therapeutic use exemption appears bizarre. Furthermore, it has come out that the Tour has given itself unlimited discretion in handing out punishiments. Supposedly, players have not been suspended for taking recreational drugs and testing positive.

As more facts come out, I suspect the players are going to insist on modifications to the current program. It is unfair and arbitrary. For players with legitimate health problems, it may be dangerous.

Excellent points, a better argument for Barron on the testosterone would be to slant so he can get something out of it. In other words, make it so that he can drive the cart so he's saving his energy and avoiding potential injury.
A little lame I know but he's go to try to get something out of this.

[cplof]

[quote name='FUBUKI4LIFE' date='Nov 13 2009, 10:15 PM' post='2063323']
The Tour told him months ago that he should not use the drugs correct?

Therefore he should have stopped taking them or tried an alternative route....If they tell you that it's on the no go list then it's a no go plain and simple.



Maybe he should have stopped, but that's not what he is suing for. He is not appealing the ban, he is suing under the americans with disabilities act. What you mentioned would be like Casey Martin being told he can't use a cart and then using it. I am under the impression that Barron continued to take the substances with a f*** it attitude, rather than trying to gain an unfair advantage.

I am on his side all the way, but I still do not like the argument that it doesn't matter because he is not playing very well even if he is on PEDs. Every player must be held to the same standard, with the exemption of medical conditions.