Brent S. Rushall in a commentary on the positive test of the Australian cricketer, Graeme Rummans (2002).
The argument is made that the Probenecid in Graeme Rummans' drug test was of insufficient quantity to mask any performance-enhancing drug by retention. Evidence has been provided and admitted that the drug was used by a professional specialist for medical purposes. Despite Probenecid being listed as a banned drug, its use alone is not performance enhancing, and therefore, its singular detection is outside of the boundaries of the accepted purview of sport drug testing and performance enhancement. Its use, as detected here, has no sporting relevance. Probenecid alone should not be grounds for any punishment. Its continued listing is very questionable.
There have been cases where a masking-agent alone was deemed sufficient grounds for a penalty (e.g., WANG LUNA (F - China) tested positive for triamterene (diuretic masking agent) before the World Championships in Perth, Australia on January 8, 1998. On Thursday August 6, 1998 FINA imposed a 2-year ban and rejected an appeal to FINA). There are differences between the swimmer's case and Graeme Rummans' situation. The Chinese swimmer's triamterene was not used for medical purposes, the drug had a diuretic, not retentive function, and the swimmer's use was clandestine, not public as with Graeme Rummans. Those differences are sufficient to warrant those past penalties as being irrelevant to the case under consideration at this time.
Return to Table of Contents for this issue.