Nick Symmonds book excerpt, you're gonna want to read this!

opinionated guy wrote:

I know this is the common mantra. However, I have never heard of a cancer, strep, iron, or any other complicated or simple medical blood/urine test being "faked, screwed up, false/positive, or mishandled." They must exist to some degree, but I only hear this when someone tests positive for PEDs.

I imagine that those tests aren't challenged in quite the same way positive PED tests are. If you get a strep test that's negative while you have a sore throat, do you go to your doctor and insist that you be tested again, and that it must be wrong?

Big Man Ray wrote:

Tantric wrote:

Why would he need to breathe a sigh of relief when samples came back negative?

Because he was around while his friends were hoovering coke the night before. Nick was likely worried that somehow he might have been exposed enough that the test would catch it.

Come back after you've actually read the article, son.

I did read the article and no where in it does it imply that this why he breathes a sigh of relief. In fact given that no one was smoking crack, your theory makes no sense, as no one in their right mind would think that simply being around people doing lines would give one a positive test.

Come back after you are less smug, son.

I took it to mean that even if one is clean, one never knows if there will be a false positive, or if one accidentally took something in medicine or a supplement.

I thought the same thing. Jesus, this sounds like a 7th grader wrote it. He should have at least had it edited by a ghostwriter.

newname wrote:

His writing is cringe-worthy:

"had developed a taste for the bitter white powder on the Costa Rican trip we had taken together during college, and he occasionally still made the financial transaction to acquire the illegal substance."

Made the financial transaction? Jesus Christ.

newname wrote:

His writing is cringe-worthy:

"had developed a taste for the bitter white powder on the Costa Rican trip we had taken together during college, and he occasionally still made the financial transaction to acquire the illegal substance."

Made the financial transaction? Jesus Christ.

Painful. How about . . . "My friend started using during a Costa Rican college trip and still picked some up from time to time."

Did anybody edit any of his work?

Ca$hclay wrote:

Did anybody edit any of his work?

I'm sure he hired some third rate editor because he cannot afford a real one. This book isn't going to make him the money he wants. I wonder how much HE paid ESPN to do a story about this? A couple hundred grand? More?

This book sounds like a gossip rag more than anything. The stories he has collectively exaggerated over his lifetime are now all in one book. He failed to get the American record, so now in 15 years he will be completely forgotten as a runner. This is his way to be remembered.

New Nick in undergrad at Willamette, partied with him some. He was known on campus as a huge exaggerator and pretty full of himself... but honestly, it was kind of endearing, and if you didn't take his stories totally seriously, they were at least fun stories. I have no doubt this book will be the same. Mostly half-truths, told in a fun manner to make him look like the epitome of macho. And it will make for an entertaining read. Just take it with a grain of salt.

Not buying it wrote:

[K]New Nick in undergrad at Willamette, partied with him some. He was known on campus as a huge exaggerator and pretty full of himself...

Ah yes, like countless other college athletes. Make that countless other college kids, period.

darkwave wrote:

I imagine that those tests aren't challenged in quite the same way positive PED tests are. If you get a strep test that's negative while you have a sore throat, do you go to your doctor and insist that you be tested again, and that it must be wrong?

That is kind of the point I was trying to make. Tests are accepted as correct except in the cases of positive PEDs. Do people think a huge portion of common tests like strep are wrong? Or do those that get caught with PED's act like a kid caught with their hand in a candy jar and cry "the test is wrong?" I believe it is the latter. Science is science. Why would people challenge only one area if incorrect tests are so prevalent? I feel like they are looking for a loophole or a call from the governor. Well, that or they drank a six pack and had sex the previous night.

opinionated guy wrote:

Do people think a huge portion of common tests like strep are wrong? Or do those that get caught with PED's act like a kid caught with their hand in a candy jar and cry "the test is wrong?" I believe it is the latter. Science is science. Why would people challenge only one area if incorrect tests are so prevalent? I feel like they are looking for a loophole or a call from the governor. Well, that or they drank a six pack and had sex the previous night.

And I think it's the former :). I think we tend to assume that medical tests like bloodwork are absolutely correct and unassailable, when they may not be.

For example, sometimes it's difficult to draw blood from me, due to circulation problems. And there have been times (after they had to jab me umpteen times to get enough blood) that my results have come back wonky - it's been explained to me that that's because the difficulty of the blood draw altered the contents a bit. These tests aren't perfect.

darkwave wrote:

I think we tend to assume that medical tests like bloodwork are absolutely correct and unassailable, when they may not be.

Maybe it is my general distrust in people that makes me assume they are simply reaching straws when they test positive to shirk the blame.

I will try to keep more of an open mind.

ten and six wrote:

Not buying it wrote:

[K]New Nick in undergrad at Willamette, partied with him some. He was known on campus as a huge exaggerator and pretty full of himself...

Ah yes, like countless other college athletes. Make that countless other college kids, period.

I'm just saying, enjoy the book for what it is. Some fun stories that are obviously not 100% true, but still entertaining.

ten and six wrote:

Not buying it wrote:

[K]New Nick in undergrad at Willamette, partied with him some. He was known on campus as a huge exaggerator and pretty full of himself...

Ah yes, like countless other college athletes. Make that countless other college kids, period.

Anyone who has had any interaction with Nick knows that Not buying it is correct. Feel free enjoying his fiction, if you want, but don't take a word he says seriously.

Nothing Symmonds does or says off the track should be taken seriously.

"I know this is the common mantra. However, I have never heard of a cancer, strep, iron, or any other complicated or simple medical blood/urine test being "faked, screwed up, false/positive, or mishandled."

-you sure as heck aren't around the medical field then. Blood placed in wrong types of tubes, mislabeled, not placed in proper cooled area prior to testing, etc...happens all the time.

newname wrote:

fan of US distance running wrote:

I don't understand your confusion.

You think pulling your pants down and having a stranger stare at your penis while you pee is nothing to find strange?

ummmm

Not any different than a hernia check for a sports physical. Both are strange, both cannot be accomplished a different way and both are required to compete at a certain level. You do understand why they have to watch the urine come out of you right?

No different than walking around any locker room at almost any gym, sports club, etc. in the world...

Other than that I am just glad Bowerman never peed on me in the shower.

Wrong kind of sample wrote:

DCO: "What are you doing..."

Athlete: "I thought you wanted a sample?"

DCO: We are not after a semen sample!

Athlete: "my bad, mind if I finish...?"

Lol, that could perhaps get you off the "short list."

Portlander wrote:

I don't know, dozens of Symmonds threads in the past have turned into a "Nick is so good looking" or "Nicks bangs tons of chicks" discussion. Most likely it is Nick trying to draw attention to himself.

Himself and "little Nick."

The women testers must have been jockeying to test the black guys

to see if what they say is really true.

lpd wrote:

The women testers must have been jockeying to test the black guys

to see if what they say is really true.

No

kipisfast wrote:

Are women subjected to the same treatment? Can male testers collect from female test subjects? If so, where do I sign up?

I was tested in the NCAA and I had to pee with someone sitting in a corner and watching. It did occur to me that that job is probably the weirdest job you could possibly have