That’s how the 1927 song made famous by Johnny Cash goes, but maybe add the line, if you’re going to do cocaine, try not to do it with animal drugs.
KTLA in Los Angeles reportsdoctors are warning cocaine users about product cut with levamisole, used for deworming livestock.
The warning follows reports of several patients developing serious skin reactions after smoking or snorting cocaine believed to be contaminated with the veterinary drug.
The report, published online in the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology, said six patients developed purple-colored patches of necrotic skin on their ears, nose, cheeks and other parts of their body and, in some instances, suffered permanent scarring after they had used cocaine.
According to the U.S. Department of Justice, up to 70% of cocaine in the U.S. is contaminated with levamisole, which is cheap and widely available.
Posted: February 1st, 2011 - 8:35am
by Doug Powell
It was just a kiss.
Two years ago French tennis player Richard Gasquet was cleared of doping after insisting he had tested positive for a tiny quantity of cocaine because he had kissed a girl in a disco in Miami. Both the French Tennis Federation and WADA considered that even though this was an unlikely cause for a positive, it was the most probable reason.
Cycling Weekly – which I read daily – reports that a lawyer for Alberto Contador will use essentially the same defense: that even if eating contaminated beef sounds like an implausible reason for finding tiny traces of a banned substance in his organism, that is the most likely explanation.
If the glove don’t fit you must acquit.
Also, like Gasquet said about his cocaine positive, the clenbuterol could have had no effect on his performance because it was present in such tiny quantities.
Cases of Red Bull are being pulled from store shelves by officials in several countries due to the detection of cocaine in the products.
Trace amounts of the drug (0.4 micrograms per liter) were detected in Red Bull Cola by German authorities two weeks ago. A few days later, Germany's Federal Institute for Risk Assessment said that the cocaine level was too low to pose a health risk. However, bans on the drink were initiated in several German states due to concerns that their sale may violate narcotics laws.
When the Department of Health in Taiwan heard about the German’s discovery, they decided to test Red Bull Energy Drink—another product by the same manufacturer. They, too, found 0.4 micrograms of cocaine for each liter tested.
A statement made by the folks at Red Bull two days ago said,
"It would have been absolutely impossible for Asian (or any other) authorities to have found traces of cocaine in Red Bull Energy Drink. We believe that Asian authorities mistakenly applied concerns about Red Bull Simply Cola to Red Bull Energy Drink, a completely different product with an entirely different formula. Nevertheless, we had Red Bull Energy Drink product samples from Asia analyzed by an independent and accredited institute and confirmed that Red Bull Energy Drink does not contain any cocaine."
The same day, officials at the Centre for Food Safety in Hong Kong said a laboratory analysis found 0.1 and 0.3 micrograms of the illegal drug per liter in samples of Red Bull Sugar-free, as well as Red Bull Cola and Red Bull Energy Drink.
"A German authority had raised concerns regarding the use of de-cocainized coca leaf extract in Red Bull Simply Cola. …
"De-cocainized coca leaf extracts are used as flavoring in food products around the world and are considered to be safe. Indeed, in 21 C.FR. 182.20, the Food and Drug Administration regulations provide that it is acceptable and safe to use de-cocainized coca in food products in the United States."
Each country—and each consumer for that matter—is entitled to determine the level of risk that is acceptable to them. Food producers should respect that, and provide the information needed to make those determinations.
They should also provide sufficient data when calling anyone a liar. People who are already pulling products likely need more data than results of an undisclosed number of samples tested by a single, unnamed institute. Less arrogance is definitely in order.