No, I don't mean that. That's why I referred to "doping defenders". "Symbol of Truth" is another one of your fantasies - along with your pathological belief that those who break the antidoping rules "aren't really dopers".
You also referred to Captain America. Curious choice, but understandable. Captain America was a product of a US military top-secret serum invented to make a super-soldier. He is also part of the fantasy world of comics.
I'm not sure how my calling Scantling a multiple rule violator can be construed as a "defense", but in this case, I only brought excerpts from USADA's report that this athlete missed 3 tests, and sent an "altered email", while agreeing with "casual obsever" regarding WADA's extended definition of "Doping". Scantling's rule violations do not involved any secret serums, per se.
A metaphor is beyond you - as "Captain America" - a cartoon saviour - was intended to be. You are a cartoon saviour - for dopers. But that you take the metaphor literally is revealing of the fundamentally pedestrian nature of how you think. You are one of the dullest of contributors on this site - in every sense.
One more time: I looked like that, and pretty much still do, and have never taken anything.
I never came 4th at OG, however. Looks can be deceiving😂
But who said he ever took anything to look like that?
USADA CEO Travis T. Tygart: “Even when a rule violation, like in this case, does not involve the use of prohibited drugs ..."
Tygart doesn't know that, because the athlete avoided being tested. And why would the athlete avoid 3 consecutive tests without acceptable excuse? Because he's just another of many dopers today in elite sport, trying not to get caught - unsuccessfully - which you will do everything to avoid seeing.
A metaphor is beyond you - as "Captain America" - a cartoon saviour - was intended to be. You are a cartoon saviour - for dopers. But that you take the metaphor literally is revealing of the fundamentally pedestrian nature of how you think. You are one of the dullest of contributors on this site - in every sense.
Baghdad Bob! Was fun for a while, but it's getting old now.
Tygart doesn't know that, because the athlete avoided being tested. And why would the athlete avoid 3 consecutive tests without acceptable excuse? Because he's just another of many dopers today in elite sport, trying not to get caught - unsuccessfully - which you will do everything to avoid seeing.
On the contrary, it is you, once again, trumpeting what you don't know despite the opportunities.
Again you say "3 consecutive tests" -- that is not the case here. This was debunked.
And of course Tygart, and everyone else who has read and understood the Code, knows that rules 2.4 and 2.5 do not involve prohibited substances, as they are not rules 2.1 and 2.2, which involve the presence and use of prohibited substances. There is really no room for debate here.
What exactly are the parameters for missing a test? I've read the stories about athletes not answering the door. But are they also given X hours to respond to a text or phone call and meet at an agreed upon location? Anyone with first-hand experience want to chime in? Could an athlete legitimately miss a test?
A metaphor is beyond you - as "Captain America" - a cartoon saviour - was intended to be. You are a cartoon saviour - for dopers. But that you take the metaphor literally is revealing of the fundamentally pedestrian nature of how you think. You are one of the dullest of contributors on this site - in every sense.
Just a few days ago, it was you who literally interpreted feelings from the heart or the gut, arguing that all things must be taken literally unless otherwise indicated. Quite the double-standard.
But also wrong -- my response was equally metaphoric. Your sub-concious choice of the metaphor of a drug-induced super-soldier from a fantasy world is not lost on me.
What exactly are the parameters for missing a test? I've read the stories about athletes not answering the door. But are they also given X hours to respond to a text or phone call and meet at an agreed upon location? Anyone with first-hand experience want to chime in? Could an athlete legitimately miss a test?
If you are in the registered testing pool, there is a 1-hour window everyday when and where you have promised to be available for testing. Miss that hour while a tester is there, and you miss the test, unless you can demonstrate some outside reasons you couldn't manage despite your best efforts.
Indeed. This whole story is ridiculous front to center. This guy came fourth at the Olympic Trials in 2016 at age 23, and retired from the sport. Another silent ban?
Be that as it may, he came back after 3.5 years, set PRs everywhere in 2020 after his long time out, wins Olympic Trials, 4th at Olympics in August 2021, and surprise surprise, missed a test after Olympics in August 2021, and yet USADA chose to not test him at all between September and December 2021.
Then they tried testing him in January 2022, and boom, he dodged the test again. Still, USADA tested him only once between January and March 2022.
So much for the tough USADA, lol. They didn't even try to catch him, despite his two missed tests and unusual progression to the top. But that cheat couldn't help himself, and dodged yet another test in April 2022...
If this were a second ban after a "silent ban", the default length of the ban would be doubled -- an 8 year ban reduced to 7 years for early admission.
For a guy who came fourth in the OT in 2016, why would you say "unusual progression"? In 2017, he left track and field to play football with the Atlanta Falcons, so still involved in professional sports, and becoming "faster and stronger".
You also seem to want to equate toughness with frequent testing, whereas intelligent testing is not necessarily frequent, but prioritizes testing from a limited testing budget to increase the likelihood of catching violations. If testing is infrequent, it could also be a strong indication that testing this decathlete just wasn't a priority.
A metaphor is beyond you - as "Captain America" - a cartoon saviour - was intended to be. You are a cartoon saviour - for dopers. But that you take the metaphor literally is revealing of the fundamentally pedestrian nature of how you think. You are one of the dullest of contributors on this site - in every sense.
Just a few days ago, it was you who literally interpreted feelings from the heart or the gut, arguing that all things must be taken literally unless otherwise indicated. Quite the double-standard.
But also wrong -- my response was equally metaphoric. Your sub-concious choice of the metaphor of a drug-induced super-soldier from a fantasy world is not lost on me.
I didn't say that. You are either a liar or a moron. Or both. And what is lost on you is reality.
Tygart doesn't know that, because the athlete avoided being tested. And why would the athlete avoid 3 consecutive tests without acceptable excuse? Because he's just another of many dopers today in elite sport, trying not to get caught - unsuccessfully - which you will do everything to avoid seeing.
On the contrary, it is you, once again, trumpeting what you don't know despite the opportunities.
Again you say "3 consecutive tests" -- that is not the case here. This was debunked.
And of course Tygart, and everyone else who has read and understood the Code, knows that rules 2.4 and 2.5 do not involve prohibited substances, as they are not rules 2.1 and 2.2, which involve the presence and use of prohibited substances. There is really no room for debate here.
The only athletes who miss a series of tests and incur a violation are doping. WADA doesn't have to prove that but that's why missing tests is a doping offence. This athlete has incurred a violation - ergo, he is just another tawdry doper in a dirty sport. Your defense of the dopers is unrelenting. The only explanation is that your life would be without meaning if you had to accept the truth about the sport.
What exactly are the parameters for missing a test? I've read the stories about athletes not answering the door. But are they also given X hours to respond to a text or phone call and meet at an agreed upon location? Anyone with first-hand experience want to chime in? Could an athlete legitimately miss a test?
If you are in the registered testing pool, there is a 1-hour window everyday when and where you have promised to be available for testing. Miss that hour while a tester is there, and you miss the test, unless you can demonstrate some outside reasons you couldn't manage despite your best efforts.
That's a high burden that people here don't like to acknowledge as a burden. I'm not subject to it, but can think of times when that would just not be practical for me:
- Backpacking around Mt. Shasta. It's all off trail, and I camped overnight at a random place on the far side of the mountain, stopping when it got dark. Where would I say I'm supposed to be? This was in the '90s, but even now, I'm not sure there is cell service there to report a GPS location.
- Climbing Mt. Shasta solo in the winter. Late start new years eve 1998, got partway up a ridge, and then, dug out a little spot on a ridge in a windstorm after it got dark. Can't predict if I'm going up or down the next morning.
- Numerous road trips across US and Canada in the past half dozen years. I've never plan the stops ahead of time, and I car camp where I can find a suitable low-key place to park for the night. Sometimes, I keep driving for hours after I intend to stop because I haven't come across a good spot. Sure, I would be able to update my location in places with cell service, but lots of places in Alaska, Yukon, B.C., Alberta are completely out of cell service range.
- Lots of other wilderness and road tripping situations off the grid where I might be able to provide a rough intended route, but things change once you are out there.
Do people in the testing pool just not like wilderness outdoor activities? I'm sure mountain/trail runners would be into the off-the-grid type stuff I like.
I'm just complementing this informed discussion with a few more facts from USADA's announcement.
For example, regarding "3 consecutive tests", that doesn't apply here:
"Scantling was successfully tested nine times between his first Whereabouts Failure and his provisional suspension."
No, I don't mean that. That's why I referred to "doping defenders". "Symbol of Truth" is another one of your fantasies - along with your pathological belief that those who break the antidoping rules "aren't really dopers".
It is clear that the rules, whist being anti doping violations, are not automatically to be viewed at being so to determine dopers or doping.
I do understand that for those under the influence of limited intelligence may not really grasp this so I kindly ask that they do read the actual rules and gain help form someone with basic literacy skills.
On the contrary, it is you, once again, trumpeting what you don't know despite the opportunities.
Again you say "3 consecutive tests" -- that is not the case here. This was debunked.
And of course Tygart, and everyone else who has read and understood the Code, knows that rules 2.4 and 2.5 do not involve prohibited substances, as they are not rules 2.1 and 2.2, which involve the presence and use of prohibited substances. There is really no room for debate here.
The only athletes who miss a series of tests and incur a violation are doping. WADA doesn't have to prove that but that's why missing tests is a doping offence. This athlete has incurred a violation - ergo, he is just another tawdry doper in a dirty sport. Your defense of the dopers is unrelenting. The only explanation is that your life would be without meaning if you had to accept the truth about the sport.
Wrong ; it is not a doping offence. Do read the rules with the aid of a competent reader.
Just a few days ago, it was you who literally interpreted feelings from the heart or the gut, arguing that all things must be taken literally unless otherwise indicated. Quite the double-standard.
But also wrong -- my response was equally metaphoric. Your sub-concious choice of the metaphor of a drug-induced super-soldier from a fantasy world is not lost on me.
I didn't say that. You are either a liar or a moron. Or both. And what is lost on you is reality.
Calling people morons will get you banned yet again. Now; how many times have you been banned?
ARTICLE 1 DEFINITION OF DOPING Doping is defined as the occurrence of one or more of the anti-doping rule violations set forth in Article 2.1 through Article 2.11 of the Code.
ARTICLE 1 DEFINITION OF DOPING Doping is defined as the occurrence of one or more of the anti-doping rule violations set forth in Article 2.1 through Article 2.11 of the Code.
You confuse the Wada code with the every day use of the terms.
How can you someone be called a doper in every day dialogue who was guilty of an non intentional breach of the code.