Tygart says 30% of positives are not intentional

Tygart had nothing to do with Shelby, and the finding of "non-intent not proven" did not establish intent, but just formed the basis for punishing her as if it were intentional, presuming intent.

Can you explain why you say "high levels of nandy-boo", when WADA explains that her levels were in the usually low, less than 10 ng/ml, range found after intact boar ingestion?

It looks like you are also confusing the low chance of nandrolone from intact boar getting into the US market, with the intent behind the low chance of the presence of nandrolone in one sample of one athlete's urine. This is a common mistake.

But even in the worst case, if we presume that Shelby's ingestion of nandrolone was intentional, athletes that are included in the 70% of intentional dopers who test positive does not disprove the ballpark 30% estimate of unintentional doping among the positive tested athletes.

I wonder if any of that actually meant anything. But despite your protestations to the contrary there are quite a few "facts", which includes the facts that athletes have been found through confirmed tests to have banned substances in their system, which is prima facie evidence of doping. Since most can't produce a defence - which they are entitled to do - they have committed a violation. We call that doping. The sport accepts that, even if you can't.

Here we go again...

For starters, calfshrug said nothing about "the low chance of nandrolone from intact boar getting into the US market". And as you should know by now, while that "low chance" was enough to correctly ban that doper, there were several other, partly even more severe problems, with her burrito story. Stop deflecting and obfuscating, and go back to a Shelburrito thread if you really want to get schooled again.

I'm sure you often wonder about what things really mean.

Apparently positive tests are evidence of doping only about 60-70% of the time.

Of course -- I see he was just talking about the chance of "high levels" as being astronomically low.

Can you explain why he said "high levels of nandy-boo", when WADA says ingestion of intact boar usually leads to the values in the low, less than 10ng/ml range, like Shelby's? How is that considered a "high level", and "astronomically low", and by whom?

"calfshrug" also said "Their doping isn't unintentional. We already went through this with Shelby."

Unfortunately, the combined chance of all these astronomically low events around one potentially non-doping scenario did nothing to establish the important question of whether intent to dope was more likely than not, in this single instance, let alone the 30% of athletes Tygart is talking about.

Many medications that are commonly taken are prohibited in competition and some out of.

You have to remember that Travis Tygart’s job is to cover up doping. Of course he says stuff like this.

People say whatever they want. Literally, whatever the h*ll they want to say.

No repercussions.

It's part of the problem with society today.

Maybe people should go back to calling each other my brother (or sister) in Christ.

I miss that.

Thanks,

Pleasured by these walls and these words,

David Christ

So what I'm hearing is, if I eat meat, drink water, have sex, and wipe my mouth with my roommate's armsleeve (???), there's a good chance I'll see a performance benefit? And I'll have a ready excuse for when I test positive? Winning!

Yes, but don't overdo it. The AIU won't believe that you ate 10 - 20 burritos, for example, though USADA might.

Also, choose your roommates wisely, f.ex. bodybuilders or wrestlers, so that you get enough steroids from their mouths and sleeves.

No, they aren't. That is merely speculation. It isn't fact, merely opinion and from someone who has lost all credibility with the coverups of US doping.

I doubt the man in the street is doping as much as professional athletes. Athletes know exactly what they can't take because those drugs are listed. Carelessness isn't a defence and it isn't likely to be a common practice amongst professional athletes who follow precise regimes with everything they do.

He isn't talking only about pros. I don't know the percentage, but they actually do test non-professional athletes, many of whom probably aren't all caught up on the rules. . . because they aren't pros.and are basically hobby jogging/racing. For example: Shiefer, of tnfmedia/rungroteshief fame, a forum that precede letsrun got a ban as a non-pro:

https://www.letsrun.com/forum/flat_read.php?thread=8437103

Looking into this more, I browsed the USADA sanctioned list and saw a familiar name to me, famous '80s US cyclist John Frey (American record in the Hour back then, won a lot of national titles). In 2023, he refused a test after a race at age 65 and was given the default sanction of 2 years for a "Recreational Athlete", which they determined was his "competition level". So, yes, they definitely test non-pros. . . though this particular "Recreational Athlete" was a former pro.

https://www.usada.org/sanction/john-frey-accepts-doping-sanction/

cyclingmagazine.ca

Legendary American cyclist and Olympian John Frey banned for two years for anti-doping violation - Canadian Cycling Magazine

Matt Hansen

65-year-old refused to provide sample at TT in September

Open link

The competition levels is discussed here, with the higher levels ("International-level athlete", "National-level athlete", those in registered testing pools vs. "recreational athlete" and "sport participant") requiring more responsibility to follow rules like TUEs and getting bigger sanctions.

https://www.usada.org/spirit-of-sport/athlete-competition-levels/

I'm guessing those 30% are probably more concentrated in the lower levels of competition where they test the occasional hobby jogger type like Shiefer (46-year-old hobby cyclist at the time of his positive).

*Schiefer (spelling)

Weren't you the one who just said: "Of course you missed the point, which is about probabilities. Clod." Looks like you are the clod who wants to talk about facts and opinions.

These 60-70% figures come from WADA. For example, in WADA's 2022 ADRV report, WADA published that out of 1,979 AAFs, only 1,376 Samples (69,5%) resulted in an ADRV.

The open-ended way WADA defines doping, the man on the street probably dopes more than professional athletes, precisely for the reasons you give: professional athletes take precautions that the man on the street is blissfully unaware of.

One of the more annoying locutions in these kinds of discussions is the use of the word "we" to impute the speaker's own ignorance to every other participant. Regarding Travis Tygart, I've known him (including his name) for about twenty-five years. We worked, at different times, in the same office of the same law firm. I was there long before the creation of USADA, and worked on matters directly with the U.S. Olympic Committee and various national governing bodies of Olympic sports. Travis came to the office much later, and was involved in the formation of USADA. He did much of USADA's legal work as outside counsel and later in-house counsel, and was an obvious choice to take over the role of USADA's CEO when a vacancy opened up about (I believe) eighteen years ago.

The last time I talked with Travis was, as I recall, about twelve years ago, when he was wrapping up his successful prosecution of claims against Lance Armstrong, who gave up the fight shortly before an arbitration panel would have published a blistering "reasoned decision" against him. I know that I had some views about some matters that were different from Travis's. But I never questioned his passion or sincerity about the work that he was doing and was largely consumed by. It is silly to suggest that "he's just another in a long line of mediocre bureaucratic workers" whose name "we" know only "because of Lance Armstrong."

This is quite the screed. Asserting that you (who are you?) know Travis Tygart to be above board and honest, when all the public evidence points in the other direction.

In the high profile cases of Shelby Houlihan and Erriyon Knighton, Travis Tygart assisted the American cheaters. He attempted to allow Houlihan to compete while suspended, and to cancel Knighton’s suspension altogether. He simply cannot be trusted.