Saturday, October 20th, Eamon Condon's transcription of an article in The Electronic Telegraph included:
>The news last weekend that Inger Miller, the American sprinter, had tested >positive for caffeine has hardly eased the situation given that the test >took place in 1999 and it had taken 2.5 years for the news to become public >and any penalties to be applied. I realize that it is aside from the main thrust of this article, and I realize that my question may be naive, but why would it matter that an athlete tests positive for caffiene? I can't see that consuming a dozen cups of coffee or a dozen cans of cola per day provides any advantage in muscle-building, stamina, or anything else relevant to athletic performance. How does caffiene get into the list of proscribed substances? (No intention of "shooting the messenger:" I think we all appreciate the service Eamonn does in transcribing these articles.)
