Did you know that Kenya doesn't routinely castrate their pigs? If a well-funded legal defense is no match for the WADA train hauling athletes to a 4-year sanction, what chance does a no-name Kenyan have, and what choice do they have but to not contest it and win a 1-year reduction?
Oh that's bad. Even rekrunner said the roids helped Shelburrito. So they must really give'em wings.
Two facts to consider:
- She tested positive in Dec. 2020, when there were no races to help.
-She ingested what WADA calls a low amount. The biology of nandrolone ingestion says that most of the nandrolone was filtered out before getting into her blood where it could help.
WADA did not say that. Your claim it couldn't have aided her is also your interpretation - it isn't the "biology of nandrolone ingestion", which is that it the drug is performance enhancing, and hence banned. She lost every argument that mattered but you sure like to flog a dead horse.
This post was edited 38 seconds after it was posted.
But how do you know steroids - but only steroids - are effective for women?(but only women, it seems. Not men. Also, steroids aren't the only drug they are using but a combination, as a doping 'cocktail'. Do those other drugs have no effect?). The same reasons that would lead to the conclusion that steroids enhance performance suggest that other drugs can do the same - even, believe it or not, EPO. You never cease to show what Sage says about you.
Another strawman, or perhaps a pure lack of comprehension. I didn't say any of that, but I said that I have never expressed doubts. It is you that "haven't been following rekrunner", despite your obsession.
The reasons for my lack of doubts should be obvious to those with basic knowledge of running history and high school biology.
In doping history, we often talk about East German women, Russian women, and Chinese women, but never East German men, Russian men, or Chinese men. Why is that? We often talk about how athletes like Caster Semenya, and how transsexual athletes impact the women's category, but not the men's. Why is that? One biological reason is that men already have large amounts of male hormones naturally, unlike women.
This applies to steroids and women, but would not apply to men, or to other drugs, like EPO.
The beauty of looking at alltime historical results is that it captures the end result of all doping combined. We don't need to know what individual athletes are doing, but we can look at whole populations, for signs of allegedly powerful and widespread effects. This is exactly the method used to support and sustain a belief that East Africans are doping with EPO. When we combine this what what little is known about doping (e.g. comparing Russia~100% versus Japan~0%), we can look for unnatural performance anomalies.
What you talked about at school is what you - not "we" - talked about. Doping is not the feature of one sex and not the other; all banned drugs can aid any athlete, of any sex, any age and any ability. That is why antidoping doesn't make exceptions. Your attempted distinctions are your fantasies.
There is no "beauty in looking at all-time results" as you have no idea which athletes, who are your data, were doping and what their performances would have been if they were clean. Your attempted "science" is nothing more than trying to pin the tail on the donkey. But Sage would be amused.
Did you know that Kenya doesn't routinely castrate their pigs? If a well-funded legal defense is no match for the WADA train hauling athletes to a 4-year sanction, what chance does a no-name Kenyan have, and what choice do they have but to not contest it and win a 1-year reduction?
An expert before CAS said the chances of accidental contamination through eating contaminated pork was "near zero". But we already know that Kenyans don't get their nandrolone from uncastrated pigs.
Did you know that Kenya doesn't routinely castrate their pigs? If a well-funded legal defense is no match for the WADA train hauling athletes to a 4-year sanction, what chance does a no-name Kenyan have, and what choice do they have but to not contest it and win a 1-year reduction?
Rekrunner, you forgot to post this with one of your liar soorer handles. Usually as rekrunner hou don't troll/lie as obviously.
- WADA train... no such thing; AIU, WA, CAS, the Supreme Court are neither WADA nor WADA-funded nor WADA-trained
- well-funded legal defense... hilarious. Shelburrito lost not because it's a contest about money but about facts; and she had too much artificial roids in her body. If it were about money, she would have won - see Froome.
- what choice... again, not about money. Just show that you had eaten non-castrated boar and you are off the hook - unless of course it was too much nandro and or artificial nandro.
- She tested positive in Dec. 2020, when there were no races to help.
-She ingested what WADA calls a low amount. The biology of nandrolone ingestion says that most of the nandrolone was filtered out before getting into her blood where it could help.
WADA did not say that. Your claim it couldn't have aided her is also your interpretation - it isn't the "biology of nandrolone ingestion", which is that it the drug is performance enhancing, and hence banned. She lost every argument that mattered but you sure like to flog a dead horse.
I have to correct myself. I didn't give two facts to consider, but three.
Another strawman, or perhaps a pure lack of comprehension. I didn't say any of that, but I said that I have never expressed doubts. It is you that "haven't been following rekrunner", despite your obsession.
The reasons for my lack of doubts should be obvious to those with basic knowledge of running history and high school biology.
In doping history, we often talk about East German women, Russian women, and Chinese women, but never East German men, Russian men, or Chinese men. Why is that? We often talk about how athletes like Caster Semenya, and how transsexual athletes impact the women's category, but not the men's. Why is that? One biological reason is that men already have large amounts of male hormones naturally, unlike women.
This applies to steroids and women, but would not apply to men, or to other drugs, like EPO.
The beauty of looking at alltime historical results is that it captures the end result of all doping combined. We don't need to know what individual athletes are doing, but we can look at whole populations, for signs of allegedly powerful and widespread effects. This is exactly the method used to support and sustain a belief that East Africans are doping with EPO. When we combine this what what little is known about doping (e.g. comparing Russia~100% versus Japan~0%), we can look for unnatural performance anomalies.
What you talked about at school is what you - not "we" - talked about. Doping is not the feature of one sex and not the other; all banned drugs can aid any athlete, of any sex, any age and any ability. That is why antidoping doesn't make exceptions. Your attempted distinctions are your fantasies.
There is no "beauty in looking at all-time results" as you have no idea which athletes, who are your data, were doping and what their performances would have been if they were clean. Your attempted "science" is nothing more than trying to pin the tail on the donkey. But Sage would be amused.
High quantities of natural male hormones, are in fact a well known feature of one sex and not the other. It is simple biology. It's baffling that you don't know that. This is why steroids works well for women.
Did you know in your favorite anonymous survey, the surveyors don't know which athletes doped either? They don't even know who answered the doping question, and who answered the birthday question. A lack of individual data is not all that much of a barrier if you only want to make general statements about the whole group. For example, no synergistic doping cocktail ever helped any Russian man run faster than the fastest 1980s era athletes, from 1500m to the marathon. Contrast that to the Japanese men.
Did you know that Kenya doesn't routinely castrate their pigs? If a well-funded legal defense is no match for the WADA train hauling athletes to a 4-year sanction, what chance does a no-name Kenyan have, and what choice do they have but to not contest it and win a 1-year reduction?
Now you are just getting desperate. Too many fires to put out today? Aside from your hysterical nonsense about "WADA train hauling athletes to a 4-year sanction" that doesn't even deserve to be commented on, you should realize that this "no-name Kenyan" is a 30:15 athlete, and admitted some details, including when she bought the nandrolone and when it was injected. No chance for accidental ingestion, just like with Shelburrito. Completely independent of castration and Mexican food and so on.
Did you know that Kenya doesn't routinely castrate their pigs? If a well-funded legal defense is no match for the WADA train hauling athletes to a 4-year sanction, what chance does a no-name Kenyan have, and what choice do they have but to not contest it and win a 1-year reduction?
Rekrunner, you forgot to post this with one of your liar soorer handles. Usually as rekrunner hou don't troll/lie as obviously.
- WADA train... no such thing; AIU, WA, CAS, the Supreme Court are neither WADA nor WADA-funded nor WADA-trained
- well-funded legal defense... hilarious. Shelburrito lost not because it's a contest about money but about facts; and she had too much artificial roids in her body. If it were about money, she would have won - see Froome.
- what choice... again, not about money. Just show that you had eaten non-castrated boar and you are off the hook - unless of course it was too much nandro and or artificial nandro.
So much dishonesty...
No trolling. No lies. No dishonesty. At least on my part.
The "WADA train" is derived from USADA Chief Travis Tygart, who tells us that the WADA Code can railroad innocent athletes to 4-year sanctions. The AIU, WA, CAS, are all subservient to the WADA Code. WADA built the tracks and the train, and the AIU, WA, and the CAS are all working on WADA's train. The Swiss Supreme Court dismissed Houlihan's appeal, but had they heard it, they would have also applied the terms of the WADA Code.
The innocent athlete may not always be able to collect the facts necessary to prove their innocence, weeks or months after the fact, as potential sources (meals or supplements) may have been long ago consumed, or discarded. It is WADA, through the WADA Code, that railroads these innocent athletes to 4-year bans for any failures to find sufficient facts to explain the probable source, regardless of the feasibility of fact-finding.
Your solution to "just show that you had eaten non-castrated boar" is easier said than done. It is 20-20 hindsight for me and you, but not for no-name Kenyans. They would need 5 or 6 figures to pay the lawyer who knows to look for nandrolone from pork, then investigate where the pork came from, what the pig ate (to rule out "artificial roids"), conduct tests on any supplements, etc.
Did you know that Kenya doesn't routinely castrate their pigs? If a well-funded legal defense is no match for the WADA train hauling athletes to a 4-year sanction, what chance does a no-name Kenyan have, and what choice do they have but to not contest it and win a 1-year reduction?
Now you are just getting desperate. Too many fires to put out today? Aside from your hysterical nonsense about "WADA train hauling athletes to a 4-year sanction" that doesn't even deserve to be commented on, you should realize that this "no-name Kenyan" is a 30:15 athlete, and admitted some details, including when she bought the nandrolone and when it was injected. No chance for accidental ingestion, just like with Shelburrito. Completely independent of castration and Mexican food and so on.
Credit where credit is due -- USADA Chief Travis Tygart is the one who talks about railroading innocent athletes to 4-year sanctions.
Injecting nandrolone would be much more effective, compared to ingesting a low amount.
I do find it hard to believe that anyone today would still inject nandrolone on purpose, given it is detectable for something like 6-9 months.
I see a new trend though, that athletes are taking the 3-year ban for early admission, rather than contesting the ADRV, or worse, fabricating doctors notes and prescriptions.
What you talked about at school is what you - not "we" - talked about. Doping is not the feature of one sex and not the other; all banned drugs can aid any athlete, of any sex, any age and any ability. That is why antidoping doesn't make exceptions. Your attempted distinctions are your fantasies.
There is no "beauty in looking at all-time results" as you have no idea which athletes, who are your data, were doping and what their performances would have been if they were clean. Your attempted "science" is nothing more than trying to pin the tail on the donkey. But Sage would be amused.
High quantities of natural male hormones, are in fact a well known feature of one sex and not the other. It is simple biology. It's baffling that you don't know that. This is why steroids works well for women.
Did you know in your favorite anonymous survey, the surveyors don't know which athletes doped either? They don't even know who answered the doping question, and who answered the birthday question. A lack of individual data is not all that much of a barrier if you only want to make general statements about the whole group. For example, no synergistic doping cocktail ever helped any Russian man run faster than the fastest 1980s era athletes, from 1500m to the marathon. Contrast that to the Japanese men.
Testosterone and other forms of steroid are also performance enhancing drugs for males - which is why they are banned regardless of gender. You continue to show what an ignorant clod you are.
Your argument about the anonymity of the survey surpasses even your usual standards of stupidity. The athletes involved in the survey admitted they were doping. The survey thus measured prevalence but not performance - it wasn't used to adduce the gains the athletes achieved from their admitted doping. By contrast, your attempts at measuring the effects of doping on performance lack any data or knowledge of who was doping, which renders your assessment speculation without basis. But that's you, with everything.
This post was edited 1 minute after it was posted.
Testosterone and other forms of steroid are also performance enhancing drugs for males - which is why they are banned regardless of gender. You continue to show what an ignorant clod you are.
Your argument about the anonymity of the survey surpasses even your usual standards of stupidity. The athletes involved in the survey admitted they were doping. The survey thus measured prevalence but not performance - it wasn't used to adduce the gains the athletes achieved from their admitted doping. By contrast, your attempts at measuring the effects of doping on performance lack any data or knowledge of who was doping, which renders your assessment speculation without basis. But that's you, with everything.
We were talking about gender differences of doping effectiveness. WADA only considers "potential" to be effective precisely to avoid these nuanced discussions. It would be ignorant to argue based on what WADA bans.
The biological reality is that men naturally possess higher amounts of male hormones. For example, women may possess 0.5 to 2.4 nmol/L of testosterone compared to the men's 10 to 35 nmol/L. Adding a dose of 5 nmol/L for women will increase their testosterone levels by a factor of 300-1100%, while the same dose for a man would be 14-50%.
If my argument about not knowing which athletes doped in a survey seems stupid to you, then you begin can imagine how stupid it sounds to me when you said it first.
I do not attempt to measure the individual effects of doping on performance, and therefore have no such assessment.
Testosterone and other forms of steroid are also performance enhancing drugs for males - which is why they are banned regardless of gender. You continue to show what an ignorant clod you are.
Your argument about the anonymity of the survey surpasses even your usual standards of stupidity. The athletes involved in the survey admitted they were doping. The survey thus measured prevalence but not performance - it wasn't used to adduce the gains the athletes achieved from their admitted doping. By contrast, your attempts at measuring the effects of doping on performance lack any data or knowledge of who was doping, which renders your assessment speculation without basis. But that's you, with everything.
We were talking about gender differences of doping effectiveness. WADA only considers "potential" to be effective precisely to avoid these nuanced discussions. It would be ignorant to argue based on what WADA bans.
The biological reality is that men naturally possess higher amounts of male hormones. For example, women may possess 0.5 to 2.4 nmol/L of testosterone compared to the men's 10 to 35 nmol/L. Adding a dose of 5 nmol/L for women will increase their testosterone levels by a factor of 300-1100%, while the same dose for a man would be 14-50%.
If my argument about not knowing which athletes doped in a survey seems stupid to you, then you begin can imagine how stupid it sounds to me when you said it first.
I do not attempt to measure the individual effects of doping on performance, and therefore have no such assessment.
Testosterone has long been used as a ped by males - it doesn't merely have the "potential" to do so. But as you know nothing about doping you won't know that.
You are unbelievably thick. The individual identity of athletes in an anonymous survey (that's what "anonymous" means - we don't know who they are) is irrelevant to the fact that a given number of athletes admitted to drug use, which thereby indicates doping prevalence. We don't need to know who the dopers are to obtain that information. Your historical analysis, on the other hand, tells us nothing because you have no idea whether any of the athletes whose performance you purport to measure was doped or not. So you can't measure the effects of doping on performance - which you claim when you say it hasn't improved performance. You really aren't equipped to debate any of these issues.
This post was edited 1 minute after it was posted.
In 2013, Athletics Kenya’s president Isaiah Kiplagat blamed foreign coaches for doping issues that plagued the region. Instead of taking responsibility, he announced that all non-registered coaches had one week to leave Kenya. He was partially correct in his assertions. Quietly, at that time, famed coach Renato Canova from Italy left to work in China. Canova is famous for saying that EPO does not work on elite Kenyans, yet it is that PED in particular that some of the all-time best athletes have tested positive for. And race performances continue to get faster.
...
The removal of foreign coaches did not seem to affect the rate of doping back in 2013 to now. In fact, there has been an increase. With in-and-out of competition testing, the ABP, and the dedicated and independent body the, Athletics Integrity Unit, which is mandated exclusively to the sport of athletics, doping rolls on unabated. It is financially worth it for third-world athletes to dope — recouping prize money and appearance fees is nigh impossible. Foreign athletes will be monitored more closely going forward. But it is the availability of PEDs on the street in Kenya that is the issue, here, not foreign athletes visiting. Until Kenyan authorities are open to stopping street-level supply in Nairobi and elsewhere, doping and the crime that often goes with it will continue
Help us build the best running shoe review site for a chance to win a LetsRun t-shirt.Help us build the best running shoe review site for a chance to win one of 10 LetsRun t-shirts.
