Allonzo Trier
-
Buhhhhbye.
-
“The results of that (drug) test, confirmed today, revealed the reappearance of a trace amount of a banned substance. The amount detected was miniscule by scientific standards and appears to be a remnant of a substance, which the NCAA agreed, Allonzo had unknowingly ingested in 2016.”
Seriously?!?! 2016?!?!
-
@CRH107 what could it be? How was he cleared before if it was still in his system?
-
@Crimsonorblue22 “Performance-enhancing substance” according to this article. Strange sequence of events.
-
@CRH107 yeah, I guess I didn’t know it could be gone and then show up again w/out being ingested again. There are so many banned substances.
-
This is very interesting, my thought is ether he thinks he can get away with this or he’s just a fool plain and simple. Not sure you fail time and time again without knowing why it’s in your system or how it got there.
-
@CRH107 “Unknowingly”. He was drinking rain drops from the sky, and it unknowingly landed on his tongue. I hate it when that happens.
-
Trier missed, what, a whole season, then underwent a series of tests before he could play last year. It was discussed during the broadcast of one of Arizona’s games. Whatever the substance is, it stays in your system a long time. During the broadcast, the commentators said Trier claimed to have taken it once and did not know how long it took to leave the body; the series of tests measured the gradually subsiding level in the blood until it got below a max allowed level, at which point he was allowed to play. He came back to play this year because he did not feel he played well enough last year.
-
@BShark Yeah, its crazy but I don’t care. This isn’t KU Basketball related.
-
On an entirely unrelated KU matter, why in heavens name would it be necessary for an Olympian “curler” to dope? Strange times. Hudy has produced some amazing specimens over the years and I guess I am just relieved that KU has avoided enhancement speculation.
-
CRH107 said:
On an entirely unrelated KU matter, why in heavens name would it be necessary for an Olympian “curler” to dope? Strange times. Hudy has produced some amazing specimens over the years and I guess I am just relieved that KU has avoided enhancement speculation.
Because you have to be high to play that sport?
Just kidding. I am sure curlers are upstanding individuals that just love the sport.
-
@JayHawkFanToo Curlers go for beer, I thought.
-
@EdwordL someone mentioned ped’s would not be in your system that long. I have no idea. Which means he was still using or test was wrong? No idea?
-
Here’s an article about Drug Free Sport, the company that drug tests for NCAA, for anyone interested. Based out of Kansas City, founder formally worked for NCAA. Their clientele is MLB, NBA, NCAA, NFL, PGA, etc etc.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/06/sports/drug-testing-company-tied-to-ncaa-draws-criticism.html
It would seem that Trier was randomly selected if this was conducted by the NCAA, at least it sounds like that is the policy (?). Usually students are notified the day before that they are going to be tested.
-
I’m curious… but couldn’t they verify if Trier took the drug again by testing a hair sample? Hair samples are like documented time clocks. I’m sure it would be more expensive… but how important is this?
-
@approxinfinity wouldn’t he have to have periodic tests if he was caught earlier?
-
One of the articles on Trier said he hadn’t “hydrated” before the test. It also said the drug can stay in your system. Ergo: a lack of hydration caused the drug to show up?
And a relative gave him the original dosage without Trier knowing? What kind of relative would do that? (The NCAA found Alonzo hadn’t taken it intentionally.)
-
drgnslayr said:
I’m curious… but couldn’t they verify if Trier took the drug again by testing a hair sample? Hair samples are like documented time clocks. I’m sure it would be more expensive… but how important is this?
Good point. Arizona and Trier are appealing so it is important. Arizona is toast without him in the tournament so its also important. It’s probably going to affect their seed as well if they stumble up in the Pac-12 tourney. Lots of stuff here.
This is a bizarre situation. I know nothing about the substance that he took originally. He got to play innocent the first time but now there is definitely doubt surrounding a 2nd time around
-
There’s a really good thread going on the Phog for once about this. Some have researched the drug and did their homework on the situation the first time.
The original story with Trier was he was in a car accident for which there was no reported accident, hospital visit etc and neither Trier or his coach would elaborate on the accident. During his “recovery” his uncle slipped him a banned PED in a drink and the substance showed up on a subsequent drug test. Until the drug was removed from his system he was ineligible and missed 19 games during last season. I believe he had a trace amount of the PED in his system for a while that wouldn’t go away.
Now he is tested again randomly and it shows up in his system. For those that researched the drug there doesn’t seem to be any evidence that this drug could last 23 months in his system in a trace amount if this was the only dose he has ever ingested. Either Trier has been taking the drug since then or we have some sort of unexplained phenomenon going on with this kids bloodstream. With all the scrutiny surrounding the program you wonder how he’s going to get any benefit of the doubt this time around
-
His lawyer claimed it gets stored in fatty tissue and released when that tissue eventually gets used by the body. Since the newest tests revealed “trace amounts” I can imagine a scenario where a trace slightly over the level of detectability might show up in a test whereas the level was below the threshhold previously or within a margin of error. But I think it unlikely that only now does his body release more of any stored chemical.
The possibility that he is so stupid that he used it again seems almost impossible, but his uncle may have been even stupider. Perhaps he and his uncle did it the first time together, and decided to try smaller doses that eventually built up. But I doubt if any dose that was at all effective would avoid detectability.
I wonder one thing that might explain it if he is innocent–the possibility that the testing has become either more sensitive or more precise, detecting that residue in his system which evaded detection previously. Changes in handling, different testing materials (which could have subtle differences unknown to cause changed results), and even methods of analysis could all play a role. Labs are not infallible.
I had a scare 6 years ago when high contrast CAT chest images taken for my heart revealed small nodules (2-4 mm) in my lungs. Never smoked, but the protocol was for cancer screening follow-ups after 3, 6, 12, 18, and 24 months. Then we found that the protocols changed because all types of non-smokers were being found to have these nodules but they were seldom cancerous (<2% I think)–the high-contrast CAT was able to resolve down to that level, and previous test equipment had only showed 4 to 6 mm. The researchers concluded that rather than detecting cancer earlier, as the medical community had excitedly believed, the followups were endangering the patients more than the nodules, and followups were cut in half (no growth, incidentally). It was a complete reversal of the medical opinion.
I doubt the tests have changed, but I would give the kid a polygraph if he wanted one. Generally unreliable enough so they cannot be allowed in court, but in this situation, if he insists on not having used, I’d give him a chance.
Incidentally, I happened to be volunteering in the medical library at the local VA hospital when that lung issue surfaced. I researched the heck out of it, reading all types of professional periodicals, and found that Journal article that first recommended the change in protocols, and gave it to my cardiologist. It pays to educate yourself when facing anything medical–my doctor has hundreds of patients to educate himself about; I have only one.
-
One more thought on this… Trier is an athlete. He’s pushing his body to the max. He’s running at metabolism rates few people ever reach.
23 months in Trier’s life is like 60 months of the average person.
And as far as the drug being nested in tissue… because of his range of motion and constantly being in motion, and having full contact, wouldn’t you think anything nested in his tissue would have been destabilized and released long ago because of his activity?
I’m having a hard time buying into Trier’s defense… but I’m also unaware of this substance and what is possible.
Seems like the burden of proof is on him and his argument better be well-substantiated!
-
What’s their argument for a 2nd positive? We are talking 23 months since he supposedly took it the first time. The NCAA is is likely going to look at this in a different way this time around.
-
drgnslayr said:
One more thought on this… Trier is an athlete. He’s pushing his body to the max. He’s running at metabolism rates few people ever reach.
23 months in Trier’s life is like 60 months of the average person.
And as far as the drug being nested in tissue… because of his range of motion and constantly being in motion, and having full contact, wouldn’t you think anything nested in his tissue would have been destabilized and released long ago because of his activity?
I’m having a hard time buying into Trier’s defense… but I’m also unaware of this substance and what is possible.
Seems like the burden of proof is on him and his argument better be well-substantiated!
All good points. I’m not clear what the science says on this drug and it can be different for everyone. The other thread I was reading for those that did research, the drug said it should clear the system in a month. Now he was suspended a long time so it was longer then a month. I’m sure he’s been tested since being cleared. There’s a lot of questions we don’t have the answers to at the moment. What we know is he’s still got this in his body. It makes you think whether he’s been playing all season long with it in his system…
-
@BeddieKU23 That would tend to the “incredibly stupid” hypothesis!
-
Because it is stored in the fatty tissue, there’s a chance that his body doesn’t ever burn his stored fat deposits since he is an athlete. For an average person, we will tend to burn fat if we start to work out after a long layoff (i.e., the weekend warrior). For someone like him, with a body fat percentage that is already low, he may not ever be burning that stored fat, meaning everything stored in those deposits just stays there, or stays much longer than it would for a lesser athlete.
-
@CRH107 Doping is different than using PED’s. Doping is injecting your own oxygen enriched blood (which was drawn after a workout) back into your system which gives you an excess of oxygen which can aid your performance.
As for your question, I have little clue as to why a curler would need to do that.
But I do find it interesting that Russian athletic delegation this year were banned from the winter olympics because of, wait for it, blood doping.
-
@wissox Not the def of doping anymore. Now, it is PEDs. For the Rooskie curlers, meldonium, whatever the hell that is.
-
Yea from what I’ve read/heard this seems like he will be back. But, who knows. Arizona looked fine without him last night.
-
They went to overtime with lowly Oregon St… When they play better it will impact them
-
@mayjay You can tell I’m a dope that doesn’t understand doping.
-
@wissox You’ve got blood doping down.
-
There is a plausible explanation. Testing gets better every day and now it can detect quantities that it could not have dreamed just a few years back.
Remember when DNA testing was started? It was not nearly as reliable and required decent sized samples and its accuracy was just better than blood tests. Now, it can take extremely small samples and provide great results with extreme accuracy and reliability. Night an day.
Perhaps the testing method last used on Trier detects trace amounts the previous techniques could not.
-
@wissox our first clues were your questions about running miles and miles in boots, in Chicago, in snow and ice, below zero temps-plus neg wind chill. Jk you!
-
Crimsonorblue22 said:
@wissox our first clues were your questions about running miles and miles in boots, in Chicago, in snow and ice, below zero temps-plus neg wind chill. Jk you!
Actually, just moving to Chicago calls the whole “dope” thing in question. I think everyone else is leaving.
-
I appreciate your post on that, and it makes sense to me.
-
@JayHawkFanToo Maybe the masking agent he used to hide the drug failed.
-
Good point.
-
Crimsonorblue22 said:
@EdwordL someone mentioned ped’s would not be in your system that long. I have no idea. Which means he was still using or test was wrong? No idea?
Crimson: I read something, and I cannot remember if online or in the paper, that the banned substance Trier had in him is stored in the fat cells and that is how it can stay a long time. I also erred in earlier post in saying he took it once; commentators actually said he did not know how it got into his system. The article said that if he had been re-using, the amt found would have been much greater than the trace amt which just now turned up. That is why it is suspected to be a release from fat cells. How long and how many times could this happen to him?
This actually should be a great cautinary teaching point, not only in that Trier is a likely candidate to play in the NBA and could/will be subject to continued testing, but what is the potential effect on his health, having this in his body perhaps indefinitely?
