Tygart's a mess. we only know his name because of Lance Armstrong. His fame makes people listen to what he has to say. But he's just another in a long line of mediocre bureaucratic workers.
The unintentional doping is probably just cases of an ignorant athlete under a commandeering coach/chemist, or cases of kids buying sketchy supplements.
I myself got into taking intro-level bodybuilding substances, but only after three years of rumination.
I never once during my obsession with bodybuilding and fitness from age 18-21 shelled out my money for the colorful mass gainers and pre workouts.
I stuck exclusively to things like Pseudoephedrine (legally purchased), yohimbe from GNC, name brand formulations of arginine tyrosine and the like, Six Star testosterone booster (basically just boron, D3, and zinc), and other single-ingredient or otherwise transparent, non-glitzy looking supplements.
When you get kids who break the sound barrier to run into GNC or a random linktree store or to the kid who sells pills at college parties just to get X4NabolX 3000 or stuff like that, you will eventually end up ingesting AAS or precursors thereof, stimulants or precursors thereof, etc... or in the case as we see nowadays - GBL or GBL precursors, which are in fact precursors to GHB, which was known as a bodybuilding sleep and mass gaining supp before it was demonized in the 1990s.
Ephedra was also OTC, along with GHB, back in the day.
In the science of sport podcast at around 1:05:55h Tygart says:
We'll have let's just ballpark 30% of our positive tests and up being innocent source positive - so meat contamination or water or kissing or intimacy or using your roommate's armsleeve or whatever.
Not intentional cheats.
Is he just taking them at their word as to what happened?
In the science of sport podcast at around 1:05:55h Tygart says:
We'll have let's just ballpark 30% of our positive tests and up being innocent source positive - so meat contamination or water or kissing or intimacy or using your roommate's armsleeve or whatever.
Not intentional cheats.
Is he just taking them at their word as to what happened?
Exactly, it's an opinion piece disguised as a serious study.
at this point im gonna go the overeem route and just blame contaminated horse meat. looks like athletes may be able to get away with all sorts of excuses nowadays
at this point im gonna go the overeem route and just blame contaminated horse meat. looks like athletes may be able to get away with all sorts of excuses nowadays
Exactly, it's an opinion piece disguised as a serious study.
Anyone who is found to have an "unintentional positive test" should be banned for at least 6 months because they did actually have performance enhancing drugs in their system which, unintentionally or not, helped them be faster.
But I think 99% of "unintentional positives" are from purposeful dopers who just happened to find a way out.
If their doping is unintentional it does seem a little odd that so many are in contact with banned substances. I guess that means that a whole bunch of hobby joggers and similar randoms are also "unintentionally" doping, as it is in the water.
They're not being tested nor do we care about them. nitwit
Of course you missed the point, which is about probabilities. Clod.
Their doping isn't unintentional. We already went through this with Shelby. The chance of a boar's offal having such high levels of nandy-boo is astronomically low.
Bodybuilding bros would be eating at that taco truck like it's going out of business, if they served meat that is glowing with AAS
I agree. That's why I am cynical about Tygart's claim.
In the science of sport podcast at around 1:05:55h Tygart says:
We'll have let's just ballpark 30% of our positive tests and up being innocent source positive - so meat contamination or water or kissing or intimacy or using your roommate's armsleeve or whatever.
Not intentional cheats.
One third of positives just from eating the wrong food or kissing is way higher than I expected it to be.
To be fair: The quote is with regards to regular untargeted testing - for targeted testing after an investigation he estimates that about all of the positives are intentional cheats.
I can't post links, so you'll have to search for it on Spotify yourself .
Looks like Tygart just said "let's just ballpark".
It's not just Tygart, and 30% might be low. According to an article at "Sports Integrity Initiative": "At Tacking Doping in Sport 2013, Athlete Ombudsman for the US Olympic Committee (USOC) John Ruger said that between 40% and 60% of US doping cases are inadvertent – i.e. non-intentional."
And it's not just the USA. WADA publishes Testing and ADRV statistics every year showing that about only some 60-70% of positive tests end up being ADRVs, for various reasons. This 60-70% would also include some percentage of false positives from faulty lab work or faulty interpretations, or a banned substance from an unknown source, which the athlete failed to prove, either for lack of knowledge and evidence, or because they chose not to contest the charge and take a 1-year reduction.
Exactly, it's an opinion piece disguised as a serious study.
Anyone who is found to have an "unintentional positive test" should be banned for at least 6 months because they did actually have performance enhancing drugs in their system which, unintentionally or not, helped them be faster.
But I think 99% of "unintentional positives" are from purposeful dopers who just happened to find a way out.
No, some/many of those positive are for things that could be used masking agents but don't have performance enhancing effects on their own.
The 30% is probably close to the percentage of random non-athletes who would test positive if you tested everyone in the USA every day over a year. A lot of over-the-counter medicines and Rx medicines will cause positive tests (USADA warns of this themselves. . . see below. . . and non-athletes and non-serious hobby jogger types have no reason to follow those guidelines). A lot of vitamins and supplements are also contaminated. My dad just turned 88 and he's not an athlete, but he takes a lot of pills. I wouldn't be surprised that if he were tested, he would come up positive for something.
Looks like Tygart just said "let's just ballpark".
It's not just Tygart, and 30% might be low. According to an article at "Sports Integrity Initiative": "At Tacking Doping in Sport 2013, Athlete Ombudsman for the US Olympic Committee (USOC) John Ruger said that between 40% and 60% of US doping cases are inadvertent – i.e. non-intentional."
And it's not just the USA. WADA publishes Testing and ADRV statistics every year showing that about only some 60-70% of positive tests end up being ADRVs, for various reasons. This 60-70% would also include some percentage of false positives from faulty lab work or faulty interpretations, or a banned substance from an unknown source, which the athlete failed to prove, either for lack of knowledge and evidence, or because they chose not to contest the charge and take a 1-year reduction.
You are confusing "not end up being ADRVs" with "being innocent source positive"/"non-intentional". Cases that did "not end up being ADRVs" includes cases of dopers where the evidence wasn't enough to pass the high burden for a guilty verdict, cases where the doper stayed under the allowed threshold, and cases that ended up as ATFs, i.e. remained unsolved.
And of course the alleged 30% "being innocent source positive" include an unknown percentage where USADA fell for the contamination sob story of an intentional doper.
Remember - that is all on the subjective standard of the balance of probabilities.
In the science of sport podcast at around 1:05:55h Tygart says:
We'll have let's just ballpark 30% of our positive tests and up being innocent source positive - so meat contamination or water or kissing or intimacy or using your roommate's armsleeve or whatever.
Not intentional cheats.
One third of positives just from eating the wrong food or kissing is way higher than I expected it to be.
To be fair: The quote is with regards to regular untargeted testing - for targeted testing after an investigation he estimates that about all of the positives are intentional cheats.
I can't post links, so you'll have to search for it on Spotify yourself .
Looks like Tygart just said "let's just ballpark".
It's not just Tygart, and 30% might be low. According to an article at "Sports Integrity Initiative": "At Tacking Doping in Sport 2013, Athlete Ombudsman for the US Olympic Committee (USOC) John Ruger said that between 40% and 60% of US doping cases are inadvertent – i.e. non-intentional."
And it's not just the USA. WADA publishes Testing and ADRV statistics every year showing that about only some 60-70% of positive tests end up being ADRVs, for various reasons. This 60-70% would also include some percentage of false positives from faulty lab work or faulty interpretations, or a banned substance from an unknown source, which the athlete failed to prove, either for lack of knowledge and evidence, or because they chose not to contest the charge and take a 1-year reduction.
All of that is only speculation about what might have been possible but cannot be shown to be fact. What is fact is the positive tests. If the preponderance of them were inadvertent doping then testing would be thrown out for producing an unjust if actually erroneous result. It isn't, which suggests most positives aren't mistakes; they are dopers who have been caught and who have no sustainable defence.
This post was edited 48 seconds after it was posted.
You are confusing "not end up being ADRVs" with "being innocent source positive"/"non-intentional". Cases that did "not end up being ADRVs" includes cases of dopers where the evidence wasn't enough to pass the high burden for a guilty verdict, cases where the doper stayed under the allowed threshold, and cases that ended up as ATFs, i.e. remained unsolved.
And of course the alleged 30% "being innocent source positive" include an unknown percentage where USADA fell for the contamination sob story of an intentional doper.
Remember - that is all on the subjective standard of the balance of probabilities.
I admit, that is all rather confusing when so many want to mingle all these subjective judgements in with the facts.
WADA clearly explains what are not ADRVs: things like "valid medical reason", "no case to answer", and "the Athlete was found not to have committed an ADRV" in addition to a non-negligible percentage of cases that were pending when the report was produced.
I agree with you that this is not a 1-1 mapping of Tygart's "non-intentional" because of "being innocent source positive". Their can be significant errors in both directions: ADRVs found to be non-ADRVs because of evidence that fails to meet the standard, and non-ADRVs found to be ADRVs, also because of evidence that fails to meet the standard.
If we consider John Ruger's estimate of 40-60% unintentional, these latter non-ADRVs found to be ADRVs could be rather significant.
Nevertheless, 30% seems to be a reasonable ballpark, for US athletes.