Shelby Houlihan runs 4:03 1500

Pro News/Info/Results Distance

Moderation Moderation Information Moderation Information & Rules

Page 19 of 21

1 18 19 20 21

3 years ago 02/12/2022 2:30am EST

re: casual obsever

casual obsever wrote:
Phone calls are mentioned only twice in the 2021 isti, both under 4.8.8.
One phone call is allowed (but not required) after 55 minutes of waiting, with 5 minutes to go. If the athlete then arrives 6 minutes later --> missed test.
If an Athlete is not available for Testing during their specified 60-minute time slot at the location specified for that time slot for that day, they will be liable for a Missed Test even if they are located later that day and a Sample is successfully collected from them.
So, calling Coleman seven hours before the test is not allowed.
Calling Simpson during the 60 minutes and then driving 50 - 60 miles to her in the neighboring city is also not allowed, for no one can drive that far in the remaining 5 minutes.
Rekrunner already conceded these points when they came up last time, but trolls gotta troll.
What did AIU say again after the Coleman CAS verdict?
Brett Clothier, Head of the AIU, said: “We welcome the decision in this case. No notice out of competition testing is a fundamental pillar of the World Anti-Doping Code and is only possible with strict enforcement of whereabouts requirements. The decision confirms that athletes must take their whereabouts responsibilities seriously and be present at their indicated location during their daily 60-minute testing slot. It is not sufficient for athletes to be near their indicated location and to rely on being called by the doping control officer. The whereabouts requirements apply to all elite athletes around the world in equal measure.”
Evidently, USADA should have recorded a lot more missed tests than they did.

"Trolls gotta troll"? That doesn't ever sound like the argument of a winner.

I conceded what? I can't rule out a fading memory, but I don't recall ever discussing Simpson. Coleman received 4 whereabouts failures and two bans. Maybe Simpson was counted as a missed test too. We don't usually know until after 3 failures. I recall discussing Brianna Rollins, but this was also counted as a whereabouts failure.

I think it is always allowed to test an athlete outside their city outside their 1-hour window.

The AIU can speak for its testing program, but doesn't speak for USADA or the ISTI.

The question here is what is the codified consequence for the ADA/ADO and/or the DCO for any deviations from the ISTI? The ISTI says to note any deviations in the DCO report, and conduct the testing anyway, and any patterns will be useful input for determining testing strategy. The ISTI acknowledges that "no notice" testing will not always be possible, and WADA Guidelines give the DCO a fair amount of latitude to decide what is reasonable under each circumstance to locate the athlete.

3 years ago 02/12/2022 3:06am EST

re: original liar soorer

original liar soorer wrote:
rekrunner wrote:
Comment to 4.8.8.5 (d)
That section is about whereabouts!
Why no response to IST Testing 5.2.d which is defined in the “ Scope “ as mandatory.

The real question is why haven't you yet answered the 3 questions I posed above, at least three times? Are we talking about a real incident, or a hypothetical?

What did the USADA do, or did not do, that constitutes a fundamental and material breach of the (WADA Code) that you said surprised you?

USADA did not call the athlete within the 60-minute window, nor 7 hours before, nor follow an athlete to another city, nor does USADA chaperone athletes.

While the ISTI is considered mandatory, and I never said otherwise, much of the guidance about the expectations of the ADA/ADOs and DCOs can be found in another "not mandatory" document called the "WADA Guidelines for Implementing Effective Testing".

3 years ago 02/12/2022 3:12am EST

re: rekrunner

rekrunner wrote:
original liar soorer wrote:
That section is about whereabouts!
Why no response to IST Testing 5.2.d which is defined in the “ Scope “ as mandatory.
The real question is why haven't you yet answered the 3 questions I posed above, at least three times? Are we talking about a real incident, or a hypothetical?
What did the USADA do, or did not do, that constitutes a fundamental and material breach of the (WADA Code) that you said surprised you?
USADA did not call the athlete within the 60-minute window, nor 7 hours before, nor follow an athlete to another city, nor does USADA chaperone athletes.
While the ISTI is considered mandatory, and I never said otherwise, much of the guidance about the expectations of the ADA/ADOs and DCOs can be found in another "not mandatory" document called the "WADA Guidelines for Implementing Effective Testing".

Coleman and CAS.Mandatory trumps guidelines.

3 years ago 02/12/2022 3:31am EST

re: Very original liar soorer

wada-ama.org

Link:www.wada-ama.org/sites/default/files/r...

Could rek please refer to where in this doc there is a reference to what he refers to.

I can find nothing.

3 years ago 02/12/2022 3:34am EST

re: rekrunner

rekrunner wrote:
original liar soorer wrote:
That section is about whereabouts!
Why no response to IST Testing 5.2.d which is defined in the “ Scope “ as mandatory.
The real question is why haven't you yet answered the 3 questions I posed above, at least three times? Are we talking about a real incident, or a hypothetical?
What did the USADA do, or did not do, that constitutes a fundamental and material breach of the (WADA Code) that you said surprised you?
USADA did not call the athlete within the 60-minute window, nor 7 hours before, nor follow an athlete to another city, nor does USADA chaperone athletes.
While the ISTI is considered mandatory, and I never said otherwise, much of the guidance about the expectations of the ADA/ADOs and DCOs can be found in another "not mandatory" document called the "WADA Guidelines for Implementing Effective Testing".

The real question is you saying the athletes can be rung before the test.

Your rambling response does not disguise this.

3 years ago 02/12/2022 6:42am EST

re: original liar soorer

original liar soorer wrote:
You obviously have not read the docs that come with your drug.Do so before your stomach bleeds.
Nor have you read anything about the other drugs I mentioned.
You have lost the plot of this sub part of the thread in that you asked me what drugs there are that fail the Wada criteria and are not banned.This I have done.
To cover your bad memory you then add insults.
I never said the drugs that I mentioned should be banned. Why do you always invent stuff when exposed.
And your big schoolboy error of the week is that we do ban a large range of shoes.
And once upon a time training and being coached was not acceptable but things change because they are social constructions.
I await your apologies and not insults or will you runaway yet again and again.

Any kind of equipment aids performance - not just special types of shoes; food aids performance - even water aids performance - but anything used to excess or inappropriately can cause harm. You are still just blowing air out of your ignorant a*se.

3 years ago 02/12/2022 7:16am EST

re: Armstronglivs

Once again you dodge from the subject in mind.Then you add foul insults…. yet again.

So; what about the ill effects of Asprin and the others drugs I referenced.

They fit the Wada criteria for being banned but are not.You wanted examples and I have you them only to find that you run away again.

I agree water could easily be defined as a banned substance as too much is dangerous.

But all this supports my point that the banned list is a social construction and thus can easily be changed.Just like shoes being banned or not.

3 years ago 02/12/2022 7:16am EST

re: Very original liar soorer

Very original liar soorer wrote:
rekrunner wrote:
The real question is why haven't you yet answered the 3 questions I posed above, at least three times? Are we talking about a real incident, or a hypothetical?
What did the USADA do, or did not do, that constitutes a fundamental and material breach of the (WADA Code) that you said surprised you?
USADA did not call the athlete within the 60-minute window, nor 7 hours before, nor follow an athlete to another city, nor does USADA chaperone athletes.
While the ISTI is considered mandatory, and I never said otherwise, much of the guidance about the expectations of the ADA/ADOs and DCOs can be found in another "not mandatory" document called the "WADA Guidelines for Implementing Effective Testing".
Coleman and CAS.Mandatory trumps guidelines.

"Coleman and CAS" is your best answer? Can you not provide multiple complete sentences, each one including a subject, verb, and an object, coherent with each other, directly referencing the relevant rules/standards, that addresses all three of my questions to support why you said you were surprised?

So far, you have not yet said exactly what USADA is supposed to have done. USADA was not a party to the Coleman case before the CAS. USADA did not phone Coleman.

If phoning Coleman outside the last 5 minutes was the cause of the breach, and USADA did not phone Coleman, then USADA committed no breach, and therefore USADA did not get away with any breach.

If anything, the DCO was the one deviating from the standard, and the ISTI requirement, and WADA Guidelines, is to include these deviations, along with other notable details, in the report that is sent to USADA.

3 years ago 02/12/2022 7:25am EST

re: Very original liar soorer

Very original liar soorer wrote:
rekrunner wrote:
The real question is why haven't you yet answered the 3 questions I posed above, at least three times? Are we talking about a real incident, or a hypothetical?
What did the USADA do, or did not do, that constitutes a fundamental and material breach of the (WADA Code) that you said surprised you?
USADA did not call the athlete within the 60-minute window, nor 7 hours before, nor follow an athlete to another city, nor does USADA chaperone athletes.
While the ISTI is considered mandatory, and I never said otherwise, much of the guidance about the expectations of the ADA/ADOs and DCOs can be found in another "not mandatory" document called the "WADA Guidelines for Implementing Effective Testing".
The real question is you saying the athletes can be rung before the test.
Your rambling response does not disguise this.

The ISTI permits athletes to be rung during the 60-minute window. That is not in question.

My response is that USADA did not do this.

3 years ago 02/12/2022 7:30am EST

re: Very original liar soorer

Very original liar soorer wrote:
Link:www.wada-ama.org/sites/default/files/r...
Could rek please refer to where in this doc there is a reference to what he refers to.
I can find nothing.

I referred to many things.

Since you mentioned "Coleman and CAS", it might be instructive for you to read this CAS decision, paragraphs 95-115, to see how the "Code", ISTI, and Guidelines are prioritized and play together.

athleticsintegrity.org

Link:www.athleticsintegrity.org/downloads/p...

3 years ago 02/12/2022 7:47am EST

re: rekrunner

rekrunner wrote:
Very original liar soorer wrote:
Link:www.wada-ama.org/sites/default/files/r...
Could rek please refer to where in this doc there is a reference to what he refers to.
I can find nothing.
I referred to many things.
Since you mentioned "Coleman and CAS", it might be instructive for you to read this CAS decision, paragraphs 95-115, to see how the "Code", ISTI, and Guidelines are prioritized and play together.
Link:www.athleticsintegrity.org/downloads/p...

Can’t find one thing that you suggested and that you failed to provided such as a ref or a page one might be correct in thinking that you are up to mischief.

I will look to your link; thanks.

Also Rollins the hurdler when she was at the White House.

3 years ago 02/12/2022 7:50am EST

re: rekrunner

rekrunner wrote:
Very original liar soorer wrote:
The real question is you saying the athletes can be rung before the test.
Your rambling response does not disguise this.
The ISTI permits athletes to be rung during the 60-minute window. That is not in question.
My response is that USADA did not do this.

Yes; during the last 5 mins NOT prior.

My understanding was that Coleman complained that he did not get his early call.

3 years ago 02/12/2022 7:59am EST

re: Very very original liar soorer

Very very original liar soorer wrote:
rekrunner wrote:
The ISTI permits athletes to be rung during the 60-minute window. That is not in question.
My response is that USADA did not do this.
Yes; during the last 5 mins NOT prior.
My understanding was that Coleman complained that he did not get his early call.

Having re read ( after some months gap) you are correct that there was not issue about a pre call in the Coleman case.

3 years ago 02/12/2022 9:37am EST

re: Very very original liar soorer

Very very original liar soorer wrote:
Once again you dodge from the subject in mind.Then you add foul insults…. yet again.
So; what about the ill effects of Asprin and the others drugs I referenced.
They fit the Wada criteria for being banned but are not.You wanted examples and I have you them only to find that you run away again.
I agree water could easily be defined as a banned substance as too much is dangerous.
But all this supports my point that the banned list is a social construction and thus can easily be changed.Just like shoes being banned or not.

The banned list is not a social construction. It is made according to expert medical opinion - something you have nothing of.

I take aspirin daily under prescription, with no ill effect. If it was a harmful drug I would have experienced it. You never cease to spout drivel.

Despite being asked, you have not specified a drug that aids performance (how? In what way and measured by whom?), you have not identified who uses it and what are the harmful effects (according to whom) and explained why the drug is not on WADA's banned list. Don't mention aspirin again - you make a fool of yourself.

3 years ago 02/12/2022 9:59am EST

re: Very very original liar soorer

Very very original liar soorer wrote:
Very very original liar soorer wrote:
Yes; during the last 5 mins NOT prior.
My understanding was that Coleman complained that he did not get his early call.
Having re read ( after some months gap) you are correct that there was not issue about a pre call in the Coleman case.

The point here is that these calls after 55 minutes are NOT meant for the athlete to come to the tester, but that that has happened to Coleman with USADA before (see 41 and 44 for example).

See 45 and 46 in the original decision:

45. Moreover, the rule makes clear that the purpose is to prevent the possibility that the athlete is present at the premises but for some reason has not heard the DCO:‘Comment to 1.4.3(c): [...] Where an Athlete has not been located despite the DCO’s reasonable efforts, and there are only five minutes left within the 60-minute time slot, then as a last resort the DCO may (but does not have to) telephone the Athlete (assuming he/she has provided his/her telephone number in his/her Whereabouts Filing to see if he/she is at the specified location.
46. What we would emphasise is that the purpose of the telephone call is not, and can never be, to invite the athlete to come for testing.

3 years ago 02/12/2022 10:15am EST

re: casual obsever

casual obsever wrote:
Very very original liar soorer wrote:
Having re read ( after some months gap) you are correct that there was not issue about a pre call in the Coleman case.
The point here is that these calls after 55 minutes are NOT meant for the athlete to come to the tester, but that that has happened to Coleman with USADA before (see 41 and 44 for example).
See 45 and 46 in the original decision:
45. Moreover, the rule makes clear that the purpose is to prevent the possibility that the athlete is present at the premises but for some reason has not heard the DCO:‘Comment to 1.4.3(c): [...] Where an Athlete has not been located despite the DCO’s reasonable efforts, and there are only five minutes left within the 60-minute time slot, then as a last resort the DCO may (but does not have to) telephone the Athlete (assuming he/she has provided his/her telephone number in his/her Whereabouts Filing to see if he/she is at the specified location.
46. What we would emphasise is that the purpose of the telephone call is not, and can never be, to invite the athlete to come for testing.

I agree. Certainly of late USADA can’t be faulted in this regard.

3 years ago 02/12/2022 10:40am EST

re: Armstronglivs

Armstronglivs wrote:
Very very original liar soorer wrote:
Once again you dodge from the subject in mind.Then you add foul insults…. yet again.
So; what about the ill effects of Asprin and the others drugs I referenced.
They fit the Wada criteria for being banned but are not.You wanted examples and I have you them only to find that you run away again.
I agree water could easily be defined as a banned substance as too much is dangerous.
But all this supports my point that the banned list is a social construction and thus can easily be changed.Just like shoes being banned or not.
The banned list is not a social construction. It is made according to expert medical opinion - something you have nothing of.
I take aspirin daily under prescription, with no ill effect. If it was a harmful drug I would have experienced it. You never cease to spout drivel.
Despite being asked, you have not specified a drug that aids performance (how? In what way and measured by whom?), you have not identified who uses it and what are the harmful effects (according to whom) and explained why the drug is not on WADA's banned list. Don't mention aspirin again - you make a fool of yourself.

Have you bothered to read the contra inductions that come with aspirin. Bet yours are are to go in water and only 75 mg.Why can you only buy small units of Asprin and Paracetamol in the UK?

I have explained and sent links that they are painkillers and capillary dilators and used as such: read that sent at your request.

Blood thinners have a diuretic effect.

Wada don’t explain why they are enhancers only that they have the potential.

Read about the drugs I have suggested and contra indications that are well set out via any link.

You have not a clue about Social Construction Theory nor the Sociology of Medicine.Medical decisions are created in a social context.

Finally you fail to understand that even if you have not noticed any side effects such should not influence the overthrow of decades of medical science.

You are educationally exposed but in our diverse times you make find someone who admires such.

3 years ago 02/12/2022 10:43am EST

re: Armstronglivs

Armstronglivs wrote:
Very very original liar soorer wrote:
Once again you dodge from the subject in mind.Then you add foul insults…. yet again.
So; what about the ill effects of Asprin and the others drugs I referenced.
They fit the Wada criteria for being banned but are not.You wanted examples and I have you them only to find that you run away again.
I agree water could easily be defined as a banned substance as too much is dangerous.
But all this supports my point that the banned list is a social construction and thus can easily be changed.Just like shoes being banned or not.
The banned list is not a social construction. It is made according to expert medical opinion - something you have nothing of.
I take aspirin daily under prescription, with no ill effect. If it was a harmful drug I would have experienced it. You never cease to spout drivel.
Despite being asked, you have not specified a drug that aids performance (how? In what way and measured by whom?), you have not identified who uses it and what are the harmful effects (according to whom) and explained why the drug is not on WADA's banned list. Don't mention aspirin again - you make a fool of yourself.

Read this as well.

ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Salicylates dilate blood vessels through inhibiting PYK2-mediated RhoA/Rho-kinase activation

Compared with other non-steroid anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), aspirin is not correlated to hypertension. It has been shown that aspirin has unique vasodilator action in vivo, offering an explanation for the unique blood p...

Link:www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2...

3 years ago 02/12/2022 3:02pm EST

re: liar souper

liar souper wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
The banned list is not a social construction. It is made according to expert medical opinion - something you have nothing of.
I take aspirin daily under prescription, with no ill effect. If it was a harmful drug I would have experienced it. You never cease to spout drivel.
Despite being asked, you have not specified a drug that aids performance (how? In what way and measured by whom?), you have not identified who uses it and what are the harmful effects (according to whom) and explained why the drug is not on WADA's banned list. Don't mention aspirin again - you make a fool of yourself.
Read this as well.
Link:www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2...

Has Armstronglivs bothered to read the links he asked for.

Never done before; just throws out excrement insults and then hides.

3 years ago 02/12/2022 4:04pm EST

re: casual obsever

casual obsever wrote:
The point here is that these calls after 55 minutes are NOT meant for the athlete to come to the tester, but that that has happened to Coleman with USADA before (see 41 and 44 for example).
See 45 and 46 in the original decision:
45. Moreover, the rule makes clear that the purpose is to prevent the possibility that the athlete is present at the premises but for some reason has not heard the DCO:‘Comment to 1.4.3(c): [...] Where an Athlete has not been located despite the DCO’s reasonable efforts, and there are only five minutes left within the 60-minute time slot, then as a last resort the DCO may (but does not have to) telephone the Athlete (assuming he/she has provided his/her telephone number in his/her Whereabouts Filing to see if he/she is at the specified location.
46. What we would emphasise is that the purpose of the telephone call is not, and can never be, to invite the athlete to come for testing.

And yet if the athlete can come, the DCO should wait and test him as normal:

ISTI wrote:
Comment to 4.8.8.5(d): Where an Athlete has not been located despite the DCO’s reasonable efforts, and there are only five (5) minutes left within the 60-minute time slot, then as a last resort the DCO may (but does not have to) telephone the Athlete (assuming they have provided their telephone number in their Whereabouts Filing) to see if they are at the specified location. If the Athlete answers the DCO’s call and is available at (or in the immediate vicinity of) the location for immediate Testing (i.e., within the 60-minute time slot), then the DCO should wait for the Athlete and should collect the Sample from them as normal.

Page 19 of 21

1 18 19 20 21

Next Last

What People Are Talking About On LetsRun

No top threads at the moment. Check back soon.

Reply Replying to

Username

Password

Leave the password field blank to post anonymously.

Post Preview

By posting you acknowledge that you have read and abide by our Terms and Conditions.

Remember me on this device.

Shelby Houlihan runs 4:03 1500

This thread has already been deleted.

You have been subscribed.

Shelby Houlihan runs 4:03 1500

Jump To A Page

Follow rekrunner

Block rekrunner

Follow rekrunner

Block rekrunner

Follow Armstronglivs

Block Armstronglivs

Follow rekrunner

Block rekrunner

Follow rekrunner

Block rekrunner

Follow rekrunner

Block rekrunner

Follow Armstronglivs

Block Armstronglivs

Follow casual obsever

Block casual obsever

Follow rekrunner

Block rekrunner

Jump To A Page

This thread has already been deleted.

Reply Replying to

You have been subscribed.

Worlds Day 3