zxcvxzcv wrote:
Runners in the 70s and 80s were often blood doping, which the cycling community pioneered, and which we know is very effective.
Indeed.
zxcvxzcv wrote:
Runners in the 70s and 80s were often blood doping, which the cycling community pioneered, and which we know is very effective.
Indeed.
When you say that no NOP athlete has failed a drug test, I think that you mean none has failed an external drug test. Nike was testing its athletes frequently to make sure that they caught anything before WADA did.
casual obsever wrote:
rekrunner wrote:
Did I insult?
Yes. You like to do that to rile people up so they keep responding.
As for Baumann, for the millionth time, he was not banned because of "sabotaged toothpaste". Why do you keep lying about that?
Read the CAS decision. There you can also see his other made-up excuses which in part contradicted the "sabotaged toothpaste" story, e.g. his hair tests. 40 a - g. Ridiculo. Classical drug cheat response: throw ten crazy stories out there that you were clean, hoping one of them will stick.
My favorite: "The Athlete could not be so stupid as to risk detection..."
Hahahahaha.
But yes, some people still go with "sabotaged toothpaste" for Baumann, "menopause" for Decker, "beef" for.... I better stop here.
It was pathetic.
I said "sabotaged toothpaste" was "reported" -- that was not a lie. It's insulting to accuse me of lying.
It's also not important to clarify "reported" versus "alleged" -- this is your typical false outrage in order to fabricate a point that is not really important, in order to distract from the main point.
It's also not important whether the nandrolone was in the toothpaste or not -- more false outrage over a point that is not really important.
What is more important is that his positive test for nandrolone occurred more than two years after he ran 12:54.7.
Given that cause and effect cannot work backwards in time, we can't really say Baumann doped to run 12:54.7.
I just started reading Matt Hart's book, "Win at all Costs". Not sure who edits the book for obvious mistakes but there are several in chapter 5. On page 80 he describes how Olympic track teams are chosen. He claims all countries hold trial meets, as the USA does, with the first 3 placers, if they have met the Olympic A standard, making their Olympic teams. While most countries do hold meets to test athlete's current form, they may choose their teams based on other factors, not solely on the first 3 placers at the trial meet.
On page 91 he seems to assume that Steve Prefontaine wore Nike shoes at the 1972 Munich Olympics. Prefontaine wore adidas in the trial heat and finals as well.
On page 95 he claims that Phil Knight had betrayed his former business partner Kihachiro Onitsuka . Actually it was Onitsuka that betrayed Knight in the early 1970's. He had granted Knight exclusivity to sell Tiger running shoes in the US. Onitsuka had another distributor on the east coast that distributed Tiger wrestling shoes. When the east coast distributor saw how well Knight was developing the Tiger running shoe market in the US, the east coast distributor demanded exclusivity for running shoes as well. Onitsuka reneged on his original agreement with Knight, and took the east coast rights away from Knight. At this point, Knight sought out his own sourcing which led to him create a new brand which became Nike.
This ONLY works if you don't need the meds. I'm still skeptical that they work this well. If you actually need thyroid meds for hypothyroidism it doesn't have this effect on you. You recover the same as everyone else after a long run.
2 year old post and reky was exactly the same. One has to admire the consistency though.
Undefined wrote:
This ONLY works if you don't need the meds. I'm still skeptical that they work this well. If you actually need thyroid meds for hypothyroidism it doesn't have this effect on you. You recover the same as everyone else after a long run.
Perhaps a higher dose would give the same effect in people with hypothyroidism.