Why would an average marathon runner such as Claire Squires take drugs to...

help her in the VLM?

How crazy is that? .....I can almost understand from an elite athletes point of view as it could make the difference between being an also ran to someone who will get millions in sponsorship, but for her, to try and go an extra 5 - 10 minutes faster by adding a little something to her water seems crazy.

Talk about not worth it.

I know its not nice to speak ill of the dead, but perhaps rather than brushing it under the carpet and exposing what silly lengths people go to will make others realise how stupid some of these stunts are.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/othersports/athletics/london-marathon/9836654/Fundraiser-who-died-running-London-Marathon-had-significant-levels-of-stimulant-in-her-system.html

Hang on it was a suppliment. Who is to say that what we take in an energy gel does not contain the same ingredient and there but for the grace of God go any of us.

I think it's crass and insensitive of you to post this. 

That drug was legally sold and marketed until after her death as a sports aid, much like the gels, sports drinks etc most runners would consume on endurance runs like a marathon.

Why would she take it? Personal goal and marketing. Doesn't matter if you are aiming for sub-5, sub-4, sub-3 or to win the race. Most will do what they think will help them achieve that objective, be that specific types of training, nutrition or sports products like gels and drinks that claim to aid performance.

Plus it has also been reported that she was diagnosed with an irregular heartbeat, which would be the more likely culprit but that doesn't sell newspapers!

Keyboard_Worrier wrote (see)

I think it's crass and insensitive of you to post this. 

OK lets brush it under the carpet, never speak of it, then one another person gets the clever idea to take it and is unaware of the consequences, I'll send their grieving relatives around to your house to explain why you tried to quell any debate on the matter.

Sound fair?

I'd rather someone be offended by my post but wake up to the danger, than to take the head in the sand approach of yours ...

Its the calling her silly/stupid that is offensive. Justify it how you like.

The product has been banned since August 2012. It also hasn't been claimed that it caused her death, just that it was in her water bottle.

Young woman with irregular heartbeat drops dead during marathon, doesn't have the same headline grabbing bullsh*t though. So his comment is more than fair.

Eggyh73 wrote (see)

The product has been banned since August 2012.

that will make sure no-one ever takes it again.

She may have had an irregular heartbeat, but perhaps it was taking Jack3D that tipped her over the edge ... if it was so irrelevant it wouldnt have been mentioned. You can't just say 'Oh she had an irregular heartbeat so thats what did her in.' She had run a marathon before and survived but this time she did it but took a drug and died. If you want to dismiss the connection as being completely irrelevant you go for your life.

She had probably taken drugs before. Have you looked the ingredients of any sports supplement? For the most part they are drugs. She took a supplement that included that drug. She had used it in training according to her boyfriend. In the same way that most marathon runners experiment with their nutrition on their LSRs. She done nothing radically different than anyone else on the start line that day. She had planned on it to help her energy levels in the later stages of the race. In the exact same way you might any other sports drink supplement or energy gel.

Even at that the supplement she used is only banned due to one ingredient in it, which is due to possible side affects. I think many here could rattle off issues they've had with drinks and gels on long runs. I know I can for one.

The marathon is a big deal. It needs respect. Many of us forget that as we have done so many, but going on the report her heart issue was never reported to her GP. She chose to run 26.2 miles with that condition without consulting her GP, pushing for a faster time meaning working the heart harder in training and in the race.

There is no scientific proof this substance was in any way connected to her tragic death. The headlines are nothing but sensationalist gibberish to attract clicks and newspaper sales. If she did anything wrong it was a folly of youth and ignoring the heart issue.

The coroner has ruled that the drug was a factor in her death, so the drug was a factor in her death.

I think you're being a bit dramatic.  Your original post virtually draws a parallel between Claire Squires' "stunt" and the practise of traking banned drugs for performance enhancement, when in fact what she did was use a supplement - which at the time was perfectly legal - most likely marketed to suggest it was more akin to taking a caffeine-enhanced energy gel for a quick "boost" towards the end of the race.

With the benefit of hindsight, maybe it was unwise for someone with an irregular heartbeat to use any form of stimulant, and maybe a GP would have advised her against the use of such a supplement, but at the end of the day it's still a very unfortunate and tragic accident.

I would have used more conciliatory if I'd written the OP - but raising the debate is valid IMO.

Are we sure that this is just sensationist journalism?  One quote is "Prof Sharma said the high potassium levels detected, her very stiff body and evidence of blood clotting, would "certainly fit with pure amphetamine use".

I wouldn't call its use "stupid" because it seems that, to the consumer, it was a legitimate over-the-counter supplement at the time.  With hindsight it looks stupid... and to be fair, I would never touch anything like that.

But people do.  And maybe this sort of incident needs highlighting, so that the authorities do more investigations into the safety of some of these body-building type supplements.  It worries me that my younger relatives get tempted by the marketing and peer pressure.

kittenkat wrote (see)

The coroner has ruled that the drug was a factor in her death, so the drug was a factor in her death.

No he hasn't. The drug was found in her water bottle. They can't even confirm if she drank it.

EDIT: What they said it was "possible", but as I state they can't actually confirm she even took it that day. The drug has been banned since due to other studies on it.

LOL, Im not being deliberately argumentative but there does seem a few people here who just want to ignore the fact that even before the running of the event last year, the health authorities were trying to have it banned, which should have been the first clue that you should probably research a little more into it. Its not like she's had an extra cup of coffee in the morning or something. A simple google search even before the running of the event would have flagged that there were attempts to ban the product. So Im sorry but actually as much as we want to dress it up and sugar coat it, she was actually kind of foolish. That doesn't mean I think she should have paid for that foolishness with her life, nor do I not have complete sympathy for her family, but I would hope that this coming out might make people think twice about what little added extras they are taking to get them through a marathon, thats all .....

I still want to be friends with Eggy and keyboard worrior.

Eggyh73 wrote (see)

kittenkat wrote (see)

The coroner has ruled that the drug was a factor in her death, so the drug was a factor in her death.

No he hasn't. The drug was found in her water bottle. They can't even confirm if she drank it.

EDIT: What they said it was "possible", but as I state they can't actually confirm she even took it that day. The drug has been banned since due to other studies on it.

Not according to the BBC, clicky!

Clearly there is a connection, it showed up in the autopsy. The fact that she "didn't get on with it" when she used it before should probably have been a sign that she should try switching to something else to give her an energy boost but she doesn't have the benefit of hindsight, sadly. It's a good thing that this stuff is now banned.

Perhaps it's a sign that we should all stick to jelly babies and cereal bars - at least you know what's in them.

Screamapillar wrote (see)

Clearly there is a connection, it showed up in the autopsy. The fact that she "didn't get on with it" when she used it before should probably have been a sign that she should try switching to something else to give her an energy boost but she doesn't have the benefit of hindsight, sadly. It's a good thing that this stuff is now banned.

Perhaps it's a sign that we should all stick to jelly babies and cereal bars - at least you know what's in them.

But what have the jelly babies eaten?

Run Wales wrote (see)

I would have used more conciliatory if I'd written the OP - but raising the debate is valid IMO.

 

In all honesty, I tend to deliberately post without a concilatory attitude ..... its just me Im afraid, I tend to be more forthright and cut through the ball of sugar coating my statements. But I do apologize if I've offended anyone and didnt go for the more softly-softly approach.