Good point. Still looks better than what I am seeing though...
I don't know what you guys are whining about. Just scroll past -- blocking users makes it that much easier. Or even better, you can only blame yourself for clicking the link in the first place.
You've just shown again you have no debate; only your spluttering indignation. You simply do not address the fact that WADA and the antidoping authorities do not share your views about the process - or about Shelby Houlihan. You lose the debate because despite your complaints about the system nothing you say is heeded.
This sounds like you are describing yourself again. Contrary to your self delusions, I have addressed the point you mistakenly call a fact multiple times.
These are not my views, but I shared, and share, the views of anti-doping authorties like Tygart, McClaren, and anti-doping journalist Seppelt, and sports ingretity journalist Andy Brown. Regardless of whether you want to believe they share my views, I share their views.
WADA must have also shared that view, as WADA has already altered the process, creating a workgroup that defined more relaxed thresholds for banned substances found in meat and made recommendations placing a higher burden on anti-doping authorities to first conduct an investigation before declaring a positive test an AAF. This is public knowledge.
I am not winning or losing any debate because there is no debate, and there is no debating these historical facts.
It is only you who are losing, by drawing so many false conclusions simply because you are wholly ignorant of the relevant facts.
You've just shown again you have no debate; only your spluttering indignation. You simply do not address the fact that WADA and the antidoping authorities do not share your views about the process - or about Shelby Houlihan. You lose the debate because despite your complaints about the system nothing you say is heeded.
This sounds like you are describing yourself again. Contrary to your self delusions, I have addressed the point you mistakenly call a fact multiple times.
These are not my views, but I shared, and share, the views of anti-doping authorties like Tygart, McClaren, and anti-doping journalist Seppelt, and sports ingretity journalist Andy Brown. Regardless of whether you want to believe they share my views, I share their views.
WADA must have also shared that view, as WADA has already altered the process, creating a workgroup that defined more relaxed thresholds for banned substances found in meat and made recommendations placing a higher burden on anti-doping authorities to first conduct an investigation before declaring a positive test an AAF. This is public knowledge.
I am not winning or losing any debate because there is no debate, and there is no debating these historical facts.
It is only you who are losing, by drawing so many false conclusions simply because you are wholly ignorant of the relevant facts.
You don't share the views of anti doping experts - they would be astonished to hear that - you cherry-pick and misrepresent their views. Nothing you say changes anything in Houlihan's case and nor does her case prove your claims that "the system is unfair to innocent athletes". WADA is constantly reviewing its processes but that doesn't show those processes are unfair or unjust but only that they can be improved. The basic principles remain, which is that the athlete is responsible for what is found in their body and the onus falls on them to show they were not wilfully or negligently in breach of the antidoping rules. Your prescription is, as I have pointed out, irrelevant.
How many more of her perspective articles are we going to be saddled with? I for one will not be reading it. She is a cheat and I have no tolerance for cheats.
These are not my views, but I shared, and share, the views of anti-doping authorties like Tygart, McClaren, and anti-doping journalist Seppelt, and sports ingretity journalist Andy Brown. Regardless of whether you want to believe they share my views, I share their views.
WADA must have also shared that view, as WADA has already altered the process, creating a workgroup that defined more relaxed thresholds for banned substances found in meat
Are you aware of the study Seppelt was involved with that demonstrated, through very brief skin contact (e.g., a handshake), banned substances could be transmitted into an athlete’s body which subsequently triggered a positive doping test?
this thread might have been interesting - instead it was killed because one person could not shut up. there was no room for anyone else's thoughts or opinions.
thanks dude
The longest posts were rekrunner's. And then yours. No one apparently stopped you from posting. In fact no one is prevented from posting.
As for what you find "interesting" - rekrunner posting the same complaints about the Houlihan case that he has since the CAS verdict a couple of years ago doesn't really qualify as interesting. None of it is new. You're very late to that party. But go for it, by all means. You will get nowhere.
I was only talking about rekrunner - he hijacked the whole thread
that you thought this was about you - makes me think I should have been talking about you as well
These are not my views, but I shared, and share, the views of anti-doping authorties like Tygart, McClaren, and anti-doping journalist Seppelt, and sports ingretity journalist Andy Brown. Regardless of whether you want to believe they share my views, I share their views.
WADA must have also shared that view, as WADA has already altered the process, creating a workgroup that defined more relaxed thresholds for banned substances found in meat
Are you aware of the study Seppelt was involved with that demonstrated, through very brief skin contact (e.g., a handshake), banned substances could be transmitted into an athlete’s body which subsequently triggered a positive doping test?
Do downvotes suggest this is the direction this discussion now needs to go?
The longest posts were rekrunner's. And then yours. No one apparently stopped you from posting. In fact no one is prevented from posting.
As for what you find "interesting" - rekrunner posting the same complaints about the Houlihan case that he has since the CAS verdict a couple of years ago doesn't really qualify as interesting. None of it is new. You're very late to that party. But go for it, by all means. You will get nowhere.
I was only talking about rekrunner - he hijacked the whole thread
that you thought this was about you - makes me think I should have been talking about you as well
I was supporting you dude
Your response was addressed to me. I took it your complaint was about me - which surprised me in view of your previous comments. I took your sign-off ("thanks dude") as sarcasm directed at me. It seems some miscommunication occurred here.
This post was edited 1 minute after it was posted.
Are you aware of the study Seppelt was involved with that demonstrated, through very brief skin contact (e.g., a handshake), banned substances could be transmitted into an athlete’s body which subsequently triggered a positive doping test?
Do downvotes suggest this is the direction this discussion now needs to go?
LOL you only got 2 downvotes at this point. Not to worry. The interest in this thread is way down - look at page 1 for triple digit upvotes and downvotes.
As for your post, there was already a thread about this study, and Seppelt's involvement was only that he reported it, and it has nothing to do with Shelburrito's story/claim. Maybe that's why.
Be that as it may, the actual study is here (open access):
Do downvotes suggest this is the direction this discussion now needs to go?
LOL you only got 2 downvotes at this point. Not to worry. The interest in this thread is way down - look at page 1 for triple digit upvotes and downvotes.
As for your post, there was already a thread about this study, and Seppelt's involvement was only that he reported it, and it has nothing to do with Shelburrito's story/claim. Maybe that's why.
Be that as it may, the actual study is here (open access):
Can you please find the thread? I missed any discussion on this, which I sensed to be quite suspicious considering the discussion of doping on this forum.
Did you watch Seppelt’s documentary on it?
My question to rekrunner still stands. It seems he would be very interested in Seppelt’s documentary on the issue. If he has ever discussed it here, I’ve never seen him mention it. It certainly would undermine the combative arguments being made from the other side that WADA findings are completely trustworthy.
The newest ARD doping film apparently shows it's easily to test positive after someone rubs cream on you.I haven't had time to watch it. Someone please do (it's got English sub-titles) and let us know what it says.https:/...
LOL you only got 2 downvotes at this point. Not to worry. The interest in this thread is way down - look at page 1 for triple digit upvotes and downvotes.
As for your post, there was already a thread about this study, and Seppelt's involvement was only that he reported it, and it has nothing to do with Shelburrito's story/claim. Maybe that's why.
Be that as it may, the actual study is here (open access):
Can you please find the thread? I missed any discussion on this, which I sensed to be quite suspicious considering the discussion of doping on this forum.
Did you watch Seppelt’s documentary on it?
My question to rekrunner still stands. It seems he would be very interested in Seppelt’s documentary on the issue. If he has ever discussed it here, I’ve never seen him mention it. It certainly would undermine the combative arguments being made from the other side that WADA findings are completely trustworthy.
The study you cited involved oxandrolone, metandienone, clostebol and dehydrochloromethyltestosterone. Do you have conclusive reason to believe that if nandrolone would have been a part of the study, it would not have produced such findings?
Thank you! I will read it for sure. I wondered whether that study actually, to some degree, provided a basis for the crude investigation Salazar did on his sons. I all saw at the time was Steve Magness’ claims that Salazar’s experiment had no validity at all.
The study you cited involved oxandrolone, metandienone, clostebol and dehydrochloromethyltestosterone. Do you have conclusive reason to believe that if nandrolone would have been a part of the study, it would not have produced such findings?
No. My comment that this study "has nothing to do with Shelburrito's story/claim" was based on the fact that she claimed her burrito as cause for her roids, not sabotage.
The study you cited involved oxandrolone, metandienone, clostebol and dehydrochloromethyltestosterone. Do you have conclusive reason to believe that if nandrolone would have been a part of the study, it would not have produced such findings?
No. My comment that this study "has nothing to do with Shelburrito's story/claim" was based on the fact that she claimed her burrito as cause for her roids, not sabotage.
I thought there were rumblings that she later suspected the possibility of sabotage.
She was likely guided (not in authority) in her defense strategy. I can understand why vested stakeholders in this ‘sport’ would not be keen in propounding the results of that study.
Are you aware of the study Seppelt was involved with that demonstrated, through very brief skin contact (e.g., a handshake), banned substances could be transmitted into an athlete’s body which subsequently triggered a positive doping test?
I have seen Seppelt's documentary "Doping Top Secret: GUILTY". It went beyond the sabotage experiment, which I felt was more theatrical, but still concerning, by also presenting various cases of real sabotage and accidental ingestion of a swimmer, a judo competitor, a handball player, and the whole Spanish women's field hockey team, including the federation officials and their wives. My often used example of Simon Getzmann comes from this documentary, and it is the reason I list Seppelt above as a stout anti-cheating journalist who recognizes the injustice.
In the documentary, Robert Harting says the fear of sabotage is always present, and estimated that only 8 out of 10 anti-doping cases are legitamite, while there are 2 which are not legitimate "and these people have no financial resources, no legal resources, no technical resources."
Simon Getzmann proved his innocence as he was lucky to have one painkiller left to test. Without that last painkiller, he would board the train and be railroaded to a 4-year ban like many before and many after. Even proving his innocence cost him more than 10,000 Euros (of his dad's money), more than 1-year suspension, and 1 strike against him.
The common thread and the root of injustice in the process is the principle of "strict liability" placing a high burden on the athlete to become an expert in one or more foreign fields, under time pressure, at their own personal cost, while they are suspended from their main income source, often including their main sponsors.
Are you aware of the study Seppelt was involved with that demonstrated, through very brief skin contact (e.g., a handshake), banned substances could be transmitted into an athlete’s body which subsequently triggered a positive doping test?
I have seen Seppelt's documentary "Doping Top Secret: GUILTY". It went beyond the sabotage experiment, which I felt was more theatrical, but still concerning, by also presenting various cases of real sabotage and accidental ingestion of a swimmer, a judo competitor, a handball player, and the whole Spanish women's field hockey team, including the federation officials and their wives. My often used example of Simon Getzmann comes from this documentary, and it is the reason I list Seppelt above as a stout anti-cheating journalist who recognizes the injustice.
In the documentary, Robert Harting says the fear of sabotage is always present, and estimated that only 8 out of 10 anti-doping cases are legitamite, while there are 2 which are not legitimate "and these people have no financial resources, no legal resources, no technical resources."
Simon Getzmann proved his innocence as he was lucky to have one painkiller left to test. Without that last painkiller, he would board the train and be railroaded to a 4-year ban like many before and many after. Even proving his innocence cost him more than 10,000 Euros (of his dad's money), more than 1-year suspension, and 1 strike against him.
The common thread and the root of injustice in the process is the principle of "strict liability" placing a high burden on the athlete to become an expert in one or more foreign fields, under time pressure, at their own personal cost, while they are suspended from their main income source, often including their main sponsors.
I appreciate your comments on the matter. I think the implications are very big, which is possibly reason it has not received much traction here or elsewhere, or gets overshouted?
“The "end of professional sport"? The results of the experiment and the research, which lasted over four years, are causing horror among athletes. "Without sounding too apocalyptic now: I ask myself whether this could perhaps be, to some extent, the end of professional sport," said Olympic triathlon champion Jan Frodeno, who saw parts of the documentary together with other German sports stars and athletes' representatives before its release.
The film screening with the athletes is also part of the documentary. "I think this will generate a worldwide debate," said Maximilian Klein from the representative union "Athletes Germany". Thomas Röhler, Olympic javelin champion, said he was "shocked" because the documentary had "extreme repercussions in all directions".
You don't share the views of anti doping experts - they would be astonished to hear that - you cherry-pick and misrepresent their views. Nothing you say changes anything in Houlihan's case and nor does her case prove your claims that "the system is unfair to innocent athletes". WADA is constantly reviewing its processes but that doesn't show those processes are unfair or unjust but only that they can be improved. The basic principles remain, which is that the athlete is responsible for what is found in their body and the onus falls on them to show they were not wilfully or negligently in breach of the antidoping rules. Your prescription is, as I have pointed out, irrelevant.
It's not really that hard to understand if you don't let your long-held misbeliefs get in your own way. Their views I have shared cannot really be understood differently in any other meaningful context -- it's what they meant to say in the context of anti-doping enforcement with respect to fairness to all athletes. They all say "strict liability" is the reason the process is unfair to innocent athletes.
In this case, WADA reviewed their process as a direct result of an increase in meat contamination cases, likely influenced by Tygart joining other athletes groups. For example, as a result of Seppelt's documentary both the "Athletes Deutschland" and the German anti-doping "NADA" changed their local anti-doping processes to place more burden on the anti-doping organizations to prove violations, and called for WADA to adapt.
I don't pretend anything I say will change anything in Houlihan's case -- I don't know what makes you believe that is my motive. The process was too stacked against her, from the WADA Lab to the AIU's prosection with conflicted experts, to the CAS decision.
The longest posts were rekrunner's. And then yours. No one apparently stopped you from posting. In fact no one is prevented from posting.
As for what you find "interesting" - rekrunner posting the same complaints about the Houlihan case that he has since the CAS verdict a couple of years ago doesn't really qualify as interesting. None of it is new. You're very late to that party. But go for it, by all means. You will get nowhere.
I was only talking about rekrunner - he hijacked the whole thread
that you thought this was about you - makes me think I should have been talking about you as well
I was supporting you dude
Actually your Freudian slip is more accurate. Armstronglivs is also right in that everyone can share their views.
I often support mine with external facts and references. Don't be surprised if I make the effort to debunk other opinions with such facts and references -- isn't that what discussion forums are for -- to discuss the potential validity of many differing opinions? Armstronglivs says he chooses not to provide any supporting facts and references -- is anyone here gullible enough to believe he could choose otherwise, if he wanted to?
