I never asserted that I "know Travis Tygart to be above board and honest." And as far as I can tell, you haven't said that you disagree with anything that I did say, which was in response to an inaccurate posting.
Aside from a brief reference to the Armstrong matter (which was referred to by the individual to whom I was responding), I deliberately avoided making any comments about any specific cases involving any specific athletes.
Well you did seem to praise "his passion or sincerity about the work that he was doing and was largely consumed by". Considering for example Wilson, Coleman, Knighton etc. + the swimming scandal, was that all cynical?
But yes, I did know of Tygart before the Armstrong story. I also recall that USADA never caught Armstrong with a positive test.
I never asserted that I "know Travis Tygart to be above board and honest." And as far as I can tell, you haven't said that you disagree with anything that I did say, which was in response to an inaccurate posting.
Aside from a brief reference to the Armstrong matter (which was referred to by the individual to whom I was responding), I deliberately avoided making any comments about any specific cases involving any specific athletes.
And I deliberately made reference to specific cases, because they prove my point that Travis Tygart is dishonest and cannot be trusted.
I never asserted that I "know Travis Tygart to be above board and honest." And as far as I can tell, you haven't said that you disagree with anything that I did say, which was in response to an inaccurate posting.
Aside from a brief reference to the Armstrong matter (which was referred to by the individual to whom I was responding), I deliberately avoided making any comments about any specific cases involving any specific athletes.
And I deliberately made reference to specific cases, because they prove my point that Travis Tygart is dishonest and cannot be trusted.
I haven't seen any support for your allegations in any official documents by any agency or in any statements by Travis discussing the particular cases that you've cited, but I'm happy to read any reasonably reliable sources that you have. (Unsubstantiated comments by letsrun posters, for example, don't count.) As I've said, Travis and I have had different views on some matters, and I have chosen not to comment on any specific cases here beyond what I said briefly about the Armstrong matter. Of course, any support for your broad claim that cases you've cited "prove [your] point that Travis Tygart is dishonest and cannot be trusted" would be especially interesting.
Well you did seem to praise "his passion or sincerity about the work that he was doing and was largely consumed by". Considering for example Wilson, Coleman, Knighton etc. + the swimming scandal, was that all cynical?
But yes, I did know of Tygart before the Armstrong story. I also recall that USADA never caught Armstrong with a positive test.
To a reasonably careful reader, I did not "seem to praise 'his passion or sincerity about the work that he was doing and was largely consumed by.'" Rather, I said that I never questioned that passion or sincerity, which undoubtedly can sometimes lead a prosecutor or adjudicator astray. My comment was addressed to the earlier poster's assertion that "he's just another in a long line of mediocre bureaucratic workers" whose name "we" know only "because of Lance Armstrong."
I'm not sure why you said that you recall that "USADA never caught Armstrong with a positive test," which sounds like part of a frequent talking point made by Armstrong. Even without positive doping tests from any agency or governing body, USADA's lawyers presented a very strong case against Armstrong in both administrative and judicial proceedings, as Armstrong and his attorneys appeared to recognize.
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.
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.
Probabilities are factually-based estimates and not mere speculation. You failed to understand that in the Houlihan case. So you are still a clod.
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.
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.
You do strive to be more and more ridiculous when you say the man in the street dopes more than professional athletes. For what purpose?
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.
Probabilities are factually-based estimates and not mere speculation. You failed to understand that in the Houlihan case. So you are still a clod.
Didn't you just tell me that "That is merely speculation"? Now you turn around and say it is "not mere speculation"?
Just what should we call these 60-70% figures published annually by WADA?
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.
You do strive to be more and more ridiculous when you say the man in the street dopes more than professional athletes. For what purpose?
For ordinary mundane purposes, like treating cold and flu symptoms or hayfever, or treatments for various ailments or injuries, or from various homeopathic remedies, and dietary supplements, or simply eating at a restaurant.
It is the nature of WADA's expanded definition of doping that leads to the higher probability of unintentional doping, necessitating that ahtletes take extensive precautions that the man on the street need not be concerned with.
Probabilities are factually-based estimates and not mere speculation. You failed to understand that in the Houlihan case. So you are still a clod.
Didn't you just tell me that "That is merely speculation"? Now you turn around and say it is "not mere speculation"?
Just what should we call these 60-70% figures published annually by WADA?
What is speculation is Tygart's claim that a specific number of positives are unintentional. That figure is a mere guess, not informed speculation. That intention may not be proven in any given case does not mean lack of intention is thereby proven. Correspondingly, the finding of a given number of doping violations does not prove these are the only instances of doping. We know they aren't.
You do strive to be more and more ridiculous when you say the man in the street dopes more than professional athletes. For what purpose?
For ordinary mundane purposes, like treating cold and flu symptoms or hayfever, or treatments for various ailments or injuries, or from various homeopathic remedies, and dietary supplements, or simply eating at a restaurant.
It is the nature of WADA's expanded definition of doping that leads to the higher probability of unintentional doping, necessitating that ahtletes take extensive precautions that the man on the street need not be concerned with.
So the man in the street is a virtual walking pharmacy of banned performance enhancing drugs. Your idiocy has no limits.
For ordinary mundane purposes, like treating cold and flu symptoms or hayfever, or treatments for various ailments or injuries, or from various homeopathic remedies, and dietary supplements, or simply eating at a restaurant.
It is the nature of WADA's expanded definition of doping that leads to the higher probability of unintentional doping, necessitating that ahtletes take extensive precautions that the man on the street need not be concerned with.
So the man in the street is a virtual walking pharmacy of banned performance enhancing drugs.
Yes. But you wouldn't know that because your idiocy has no limits.
So the man in the street is a virtual walking pharmacy of banned performance enhancing drugs.
Yes. But you wouldn't know that because your idiocy has no limits.
Trying to get the last word in an exchange with "Armstronglivs" is a fruitless endeavor. He seems to have an inexhaustible amount of time on his hands. Some time ago, I blocked all of his postings to avoid the slightest temptation to respond to, or even read, any of his postings, but that feature seems to have been removed from the message board. (If it's still somewhere on the site, I'd appreciate some help in finding it.)
For ordinary mundane purposes, like treating cold and flu symptoms or hayfever, or treatments for various ailments or injuries, or from various homeopathic remedies, and dietary supplements, or simply eating at a restaurant.
It is the nature of WADA's expanded definition of doping that leads to the higher probability of unintentional doping, necessitating that ahtletes take extensive precautions that the man on the street need not be concerned with.
So the man in the street is a virtual walking pharmacy of banned performance enhancing drugs. Your idiocy has no limits.
Not just the performance enhancing drugs, but all of the banned non-performance enhancing drugs.
Like you, the common man completely lacks the education about the risk from ordinary everyday things from normal cold remedies to anti-inflammatories to vitamin supplements to teriyaki bowls, etc., that constitutes doping.
Didn't you just tell me that "That is merely speculation"? Now you turn around and say it is "not mere speculation"?
Just what should we call these 60-70% figures published annually by WADA?
What is speculation is Tygart's claim that a specific number of positives are unintentional. That figure is a mere guess, not informed speculation. That intention may not be proven in any given case does not mean lack of intention is thereby proven. Correspondingly, the finding of a given number of doping violations does not prove these are the only instances of doping. We know they aren't.
Did you forget what you were talking about? You said that positive tests were proof of intentional doping.
And I thought you valued the estimates from the experts. Who would know better about positive test management than Tygart? And what is their estimate of intentional doping over positive tests?
Tygart did say "ballpark", and his ballpark is conservatively consistent with what WADA historically reports annually -- no guessing or speculation. That figure may even be conservative considering: "At Tacking Doping in Sport 2013, Athlete Ombudsman for the US Olympic Committee (USOC) John Ruger said that between 40% and 60% of US doping cases are inadvertent – i.e. non-intentional."
Blocking still works for me. Once you are logged in, you can see "Follow" and "Block" below the username to the left of their post.
I haven't tried "Follow" yet, but have blocked - still successfully - the two worst trolls here. Makes all these threads a lot more readable, and their posts are always the same:
#67 This post by Armstronglivs is hidden because you have blocked this user. #68 This post by Armstronglivs is hidden because you have blocked this user. #69 This post by rekrunner is hidden because you have blocked this user. #70 This post by rekrunner is hidden because you have blocked this user. #71 This post by Armstronglivs is hidden because you have blocked this user. #72 This post by Armstronglivs is hidden because you have blocked this
Unfortunately I can still see when others are citing their posts, and it doesn't work for non-registered trolls like Armweaklivs.
Blocking still works for me. Once you are logged in, you can see "Follow" and "Block" below the username to the left of their post.
I haven't tried "Follow" yet, but have blocked - still successfully - the two worst trolls here. Makes all these threads a lot more readable, and their posts are always the same:
#67 This post by Armstronglivs is hidden because you have blocked this user. #68 This post by Armstronglivs is hidden because you have blocked this user. #69 This post by rekrunner is hidden because you have blocked this user. #70 This post by rekrunner is hidden because you have blocked this user. #71 This post by Armstronglivs is hidden because you have blocked this user. #72 This post by Armstronglivs is hidden because you have blocked this
Unfortunately I can still see when others are citing their posts, and it doesn't work for non-registered trolls like Armweaklivs.
Thank you! The other problem I've had recently is editing my own postings within a designated period of time, but maybe I've just overlooked something.
Thank you! The other problem I've had recently is editing my own postings within a designated period of time, but maybe I've just overlooked something.
It used to be 30 minutes, but it looks like now you only have 15 minutes to do it.