Keith Stone wrote:
She's double dipping?
You're crude, Keith Stone.
Keith Stone wrote:
She's double dipping?
You're crude, Keith Stone.
Considering how long ago her career began and how many tough high quality marathons she ran, I think it would be too much to expect her to be running at a high quality level at this stage.
I cannot comment on the legitimacy of the drug charges against her, the news of which disturbed me at the time. But of the elite marathoners, she was unsurpassed for beauty, grace, graciousness, and sweetness
Isn't that about the same story as Mary Slaney's? The national federation "exonerated" the athlete, but the ban knocked them out of the sport.
You wrote;
Riddle me this: she has not come anywhere close to her pre positive test results in competition? Why?
Answers(possible)
There is 20% variation in lab performance.
The labs do not monitor for contamination for that which may lower the E quanity.
Very,very little is known about the production variables of E.
The Carbon Isotobe test is now used to give a truer result.
The original T:E work was done on a sample of 6.
Alchohol changes the ratio,that's why they no longer offer such at the testing stations (but dont advise against taking it!)
Still confident in the testing???
thinittru wrote:
You wrote;
Riddle me this: she has not come anywhere close to her pre positive test results in competition? Why?
Answers(possible)
There is 20% variation in lab performance.
The labs do not monitor for contamination for that which may lower the E quanity.
Very,very little is known about the production variables of E.
The Carbon Isotobe test is now used to give a truer result.
The original T:E work was done on a sample of 6.
Alchohol changes the ratio,that's why they no longer offer such at the testing stations (but dont advise against taking it!)
Still confident in the testing???
According to WADA the T/E ratio is only a starting point and further testing is obligatory, to late for Uta, Slaney, Modahl and the British Athletics Board!
You wrote.
According to WADA the T/E ratio is only a starting point and further testing is obligatory.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
The next problem is that no one knows what these futher tests/investigations are to be.
1.they do NOT inc endocrine investigations.
2.only a few labs have the carbon isotobe machines.
3.labs refuse to provide previous and after hormonal profiles that they have.
4.seems to be limited to"is there some form of testicular cancer problem"
5.seem to have forgotten that it is a ratio problem and thus make ZERO attempt to investigate the low Epitesto even in cases where the ammount of Testo was very low.Which by the way as there is very little research on Epi testo we have no idea of what causes variables.
6.No investigation of the effect of alchohol,which is known effect.
Note to general readers.
DO YOU HAVE CONFIDENCE IN THE TESTING SYSTEM ??
I have to say it's great to see all this healthy skepticism with respect to testing. There's been far too much blind faith.
You wrote.
I have to say it's great to see all this healthy skepticism with respect to testing. There's been far too much blind faith.
............................................................
I am beyond skepticism .
In the Paul Edwards case,they did over 50 analysises on his samples and withheld this info fro the 4 hearings and in contravention of the Data protection act.They did NOT have enough urine to do this number of tests,let alone why were they doing this;and doing A sample analysis AFTER the test was declared positive.
For those who want to say something about Edwards I would remind you of the West Midlands police fabricating evidence agaist those they felt were guilty.
I saw her at the Ollie Classic 5 Mile in Southie, 2002 I believe. I don't think she won the women's race though.
Please provide your references when you make such claims. They may be true, but since you insist on posting anonymously, I can't possibly take anything you say for your word.
If you have read any of my other posting you will see that my knowledge base is pretty good and I can always add to my comments.Exactly why do you wish to know my name this never seems to be asked of anyone else.
The Edwards info comes from Hansard, AW and the Daily Mail.
As it happends I have made no direct comment on Pippig except to add comment about other problems with the T.E test which are in a variety of publictions inc IOC ones.
Which particular comment do you wish for more direction on.
The main reason that she runs more slowly is that, in light of 96 Boston, most race directors make her run with a mop.
thinittru wrote:
If you have read any of my other posting you will see that my knowledge base is pretty good and I can always add to my comments.Exactly why do you wish to know my name this never seems to be asked of anyone else.
The Edwards info comes from Hansard, AW and the Daily Mail.
As it happends I have made no direct comment on Pippig except to add comment about other problems with the T.E test which are in a variety of publictions inc IOC ones.
Which particular comment do you wish for more direction on.
Nope, it's not asked of anyone else, and if you wish to hide behind anonymnity, that's your business. But you seem intent on passing yourself off as some kind of an expert, so it's not unreasonable to ask for proof.
Looking through others threads, you asked a few times for direct links for claims others were making. Why don't you apply the same standard for yourself? Saying your claims are in a "variety of publications" without at least giving titles and chapters is sloppy work and doesn't build your case.
I don't know anything about the Uta Pippig case except what was said before...she tested positive and eventually got the case overturned. Good for her. That's justice.
Would it be nice if false positives never occured? Absolutely, just the same as it would be great if innocent people were never accused of murder, etc. Until someone comes up with a truth serum, however, those who really are guilty can always claim innocence and yell injustice and throw doubt on the whole process.
Wash your mouth out wrote:
Keith Stone wrote:She's double dipping?
You're crude, Keith Stone.
That's not crude. Crude is asking about double dipping to someone that went straight to confession from the Neverland Ranch.
What is "double dipping"?
Don't be taken in by those who claim to be experts,that is the way we have been conned by the testing industry.Take in info that is around you and apply commonsense.
I ask again, what do need further info on and I will do my best to help.