One more time: I'm not arguing that she didn't have a prescription. She did. I'm also not claiming that such prescriptions are not easy to get. Of course they are. I was just calling into question "I see stupid people's" bizarre reasoning, i.e., that it was somehow significant that Vessey was prepared to produce a prescription for a prescription-only drug.
WFrunnru wrote:
You never ran at a high level because its not hard at all to get a perscription. I'm sorry to kill your dreams, but she dopes.
Yes, and some bike guy never failed a test, either....
Bearded Clam wrote:WFrunnru wrote:One more time: I'm not arguing that she didn't have a prescription. She did. I'm also not claiming that such prescriptions are not easy to get. Of course they are. I was just calling into question "I see stupid people's" bizarre reasoning, i.e., that it was somehow significant that Vessey was prepared to produce a prescription for a prescription-only drug.
You never ran at a high level because its not hard at all to get a perscription. I'm sorry to kill your dreams, but she dopes.
As for killing my dreams, spare me, I'm not a Vessey fan. This just seems like an instance where it's more than plausible that a "caught" athlete didn't knowingly do anything wrong. Did you not read the part of the USADA press release where it explained that her urine levels of the drug were therapeutic, meaning almost certainly not sufficient to mask the presence of any no-nos?
So, let me get this straight. She get a prescription for the medication that ultimately led to her positive. As a result of taking this medication, she tested positive, but before doing so she made sure she had a prescription so she'd have an excuse for testing positive.
I see stupid people wrote:
I ' l l s p e a k s l o w e r j u s t f o r y o u
She created her own alibi prior to testing positive, thought it was obvious. I bet you own a gun.
Yeah, good point. The similarities between Vessey's circumstances and Armstrong's are startling. Except for the fact that there are none, that is.
justthefacts wrote:
Yes, and some bike guy never failed a test, either....
Yea, but for how long did guys on here vouch for his clean living? Same old same old.
Bearded Clam wrote:justthefacts wrote:Yeah, good point. The similarities between Vessey's circumstances and Armstrong's are startling. Except for the fact that there are none, that is.
Yes, and some bike guy never failed a test, either....
That is not true at all. Where do you people get this stuff?
justthefacts wrote:
It's no different if you ask any inmate in jail if he was guilty or innocent. 100% will tell you innocent. "We were framed".
True, but I suppose it's worth looking at the likelihood of someone having a given condition. Since about 98.96% of premenopausal women experience PMS at some point, I can more easily believe that a distance runner would take spironolactone for this condition than I can believe that half of American sprinters have narcolopsy and require modafinil as a result.
Ho Hum wrote:
How does getting a TUE for this diuretic change the likelihood of someone being a doper? I mean, if I were going to use it as a masking agent I'd get a prescription and a TUE anyway. You'd have to be an idiot to use a banned diuretic to mask steroids, wouldn't you?
Why do you speaks lower?
I see stupid people wrote:
I ' l l s p e a k s l o w e r j u s t f o r y o u
She created her own alibi prior to testing positive, thought it was obvious. I bet you own a gun.
Exactly...and it is not like USADA/WADA are not well aware of this drug...and the levels required to be considered a masking agent...and since she did not have them at that level...ergo warning.
real old guy wrote:
"The American 800m star was taking a prescription medicine that had a banned substance. She won't have to serve a suspension of any kind."
USADA has investigated this thoroughly and a warning is their response. Let it go haters. They have.
Exactly. Please tell "I see stupid people" the same thing, even though I've done so multiple times. And tell him to quit staring into the mirror.
A Duck wrote:
it is not like USADA/WADA are not well aware of this drug...and the levels required to be considered a masking agent