Galen Rupp most tested athlete proves he is clean.

rekrunner wrote:

Except for four tests in 1999 for cortico-steroids, and 6 tests in 2004 of 1999 samples for EPO, for a total of 10 failed tests from 1999 alone.

Okay then rekrunner...why didn't Lance mention this in his recent "come clean - tell all" interview he did for the HBO documentary on the TdF doping problem during his era? ?

You are playing around with numbers that are not reliable for that purpose. Values like 12.0 and 0.44%, 3.6, and 30% are not real, because they come with uncertainties as large, or larger, than blood transfusions. You can pretend they are real, and play the game, but it's still pretend, and you are still playing a game. When you use unreliable data to draw conclusions, your conclusions are unreliable. You cannot fix that. Nor can Ross Tucker, nor the Daily Mail. You already know this, but choose to ignore it, and stand by a reliable analysis of unreliable data to draw unreliable conclusions. I always stand by my claim that your conclusions are at best, unreliable. On a scale of 0.5 to 1.5, all of the RET% values you computed are LOW. In addition, we should expect in-competition values to be LOWER than the out of competition values, because "research has shown that endurance athletes display significantly lower RET% than normal during the competitive season". So RET is LOW (e.g. plummets to a low value like 0.77%) after altitude, and should be comparatively LOWER "in-competition" than "out of competition". I remind you that Paula's 2003 and 2005 values were in-competition, while her 2012 was out of competition. We should expect her LOW 2012 RET% value to be HIGHER than her LOW 2003 and 2005 values. You already know all of this, but chose to ignore the interpretation "research has shown", and apply your own alternative interpretation, as if your RET% comparison of IC and OOC values was an accepted valid approach. After 5-10 minutes, I still see you are using a quote and conclusion from a Daily Mail reporter, who drew his own non-expert conclusion from unreliable data, to support your non-expert conclusion, from unreliable data. An off-score of 82 doesn't mean anything if it is not reliable.

I can't speak for Lance -- maybe there simply wasn't enough time to confess all the details.

Urine Specimen wrote:

rekrunner wrote:

Except for four tests in 1999 for cortico-steroids, and 6 tests in 2004 of 1999 samples for EPO, for a total of 10 failed tests from 1999 alone.

Okay then rekrunner...why didn't Lance mention this in his recent "come clean - tell all" interview he did for the HBO documentary on the TdF doping problem during his era? ?

Maybe you find it informative and insightful, but a lot of it goes against the anti-doping research and experts that say opposite things. What I "get" is that accusations, allegations and suspicions, from British newspapers, and German documentaries, and anonymous forum posters matter much less than the findings of peer-reviewed research, and lengthy investigations. If "you don't see" the constant exaggerations, that's a statement about what you see, rather than about casual obsever's posts. Regarding USADA, on the contrary, USADA is in the habit of not commenting, rather than cover stories and diversion. I'm not really a fan of USADA -- I can find plenty to criticize -- but think they won't come with a wrongful conviction. The Fancy Bears leak was an intermediate work in progress, about a testing strategy (not a anti-doping rule violation), published to make other athletes look "as bad" as Russians. A "+++++" rating has no legitimate meaning in a WADA context. I'm not sure what "climate" you refer too -- USADA has not been accused of coverups and diversions before. On the contrary, they have been aggressively pursuing leads against Rupp, Salazar, and Dr. Brown (which have produced very little so far), and were very aggressively pursuing Armstrong before his confession. If you really want to learn things you should look outside casual obsever's posts and outside of this forum. You should also look out of google searches with very narrow keyword searches that find only what you want.

rekrunner wrote:

I'm not sure what "climate" you refer too -- USADA has not been accused of coverups and diversions before. On the contrary, they have been aggressively pursuing leads against Rupp, Salazar, and Dr. Brown (which have produced very little so far), and were very aggressively pursuing Armstrong before his confession.

C'mon man!...what about those well-publicized drug allegations against Salazar? (this posted by "Dr. "Skyrunner" up thread):

? "Alberto Salazar dispensed the schedule III controlled substance and prescription drug Androgel (testosterone gel) to his 2 experimental subjects (his 2 sons) when he did the "Possible Galen Rupp Sabotage with Androgel Experiments" with measurement of testosterone/epitestosterone (T/E) levels to see what amount would trigger a positive doping test. That is against various federal and state drug laws because Alberto is not a doctor or pharmacy and neither of his 2 sons had a prescription for Androgel."

Have these allegations been investigated by Federal agencies (i.e., DEA/FDA)? If not, then why? Transferring a schedule III controlled substance to any person other than the patient for whom it was prescribed is a serious offense. If no investigation is being conducted is this because of preferential treatment? I would imagine if it's anyone of us we would get the book thrown at us!

And then these athletes get off so easily:

Is it because they've got the money to defend themselves and are looked at by USADA in a different light? But yet USADA throws the book at this unassuming old Joe for a positive test for T (4 yrs!) in an event that he was the only entrant!

Is it because Mr. McPherson is not a big name elite and doesn't have the dough to fight the charges? ?

It's seems the big names with the "dough" run the "show" and the little Joe's go down. ?

What about them? Publicizing drug allegations is easy. If it were a question of the "big names with the "dough" running the "show"", wouldn't this long running NOP investigation, started in 2012, be dropped already? Who is bigger, with more dough, than Nike, main sponsor of the USATF? The testosterone experiment looks like something outside of USADA's jurisdiction. There was a report that the FBI is also investigating. The FBI did not confirm or deny it. Regarding Roberts, USADA rejected the passionate kissing defense, went to arbitration, and lost. Regarding Wilson, USADA thoroughly considered a lot of external evidence, before finding no-fault or negligence. The "unassuming little Joe" McPherson attended the USATF 2017 Masters Indoor Championships. A US national championship is a pretty big event for any "little Joe". I'm not sure what you would have USADA do differently. It doesn't look like USADA bent any rules for anyone, and they cannot act outside of WADA guidelines.

Everyone's looking for an edge wrote:

C'mon man!...what about those well-publicized drug allegations against Salazar?

...

Have these allegations been investigated by Federal agencies (i.e., DEA/FDA)?

...

And then these athletes get off so easily:

...

Is it because they've got the money to defend themselves and are looked at by USADA in a different light? But yet USADA throws the book at this unassuming old Joe for a positive test for T (4 yrs!) in an event that he was the only entrant!

...

Is it because Mr. McPherson is not a big name elite and doesn't have the dough to fight the charges? ?

It's seems the big names with the "dough" run the "show" and the little Joe's go down. ?

probably dropped & forgotten - is any action been taken? How long are they going to wait? The 2020 Olympics? ? IMO, nothing will be done....que sera sera.

Well...there's your first indication that nothing is going to be done when the authorities say they can't "confirm or deny" an investigation. ?

Of course, USADA rejected & CAS bought it...what's new? ?

Yeah...a rising star. ?

Yeah PRETTY BIG EVENT when you're the only participant registered. ? Stupid to waste money testing an old buck who's a lone wolf competitor.

Passionate kissing, you can't make this stuff up, still completely unreal.

How long is who gonna wait, to do what? I guess you mean USADA should take action. After the initial whistle blowing by Magness and the Gouchers, all the witness statements and photographic evidence in the BBC Panorama documentary and Propublica article, interviews of 19 cooperative former NOP athletes and employees, a legal action against Dr. Brown to the Texas Medical Board, an attempt to compel Dr. Brown to produce medical files of his patients, and years of target testing Rupp, and other NOP athletes, USADA issued a statement last year that they were still investigating whether anti-doping rules were broken. USADA also lobbied for making thyroid medication a banned substance, and presumably forwarded any testimony that falls outside of USADA's jurisdiction to the proper authorities. If nothing will be done, before 2020 Olympics, or after, it will not be for lack of trying. But then, if you really want to talk about wasting money, they are certainly not getting much bang for their buck. Again, what would you have USADA do, to whom, on what basis and authority? What else can USADA do if they lack sufficient evidence of an anti-doping rule violation?

Tell It Like It Is wrote:

rekrunner wrote:

What about them? Publicizing drug allegations is easy. If it were a question of the "big names with the "dough" running the "show"", wouldn't this long running NOP investigation, started in 2012, be dropped already? Who is bigger, with more dough, than Nike, main sponsor of the USATF?

probably dropped & forgotten - is any action been taken? How long are they going to wait? The 2020 Olympics? ? IMO, nothing will be done....que sera sera.

From the ruling, his girlfriend would pour the powdered contents from a broken capsule in her mouth, and then rinse it down with water. Since probenecid is not water-soluble, trace amounts likely remained in her mouth, and available for transfer from kissing. An arbiter was persuaded that this was more likely than not. She was taking the capsules this way for 11 days, and the kissing couple were together, over a period of 8 days. "Arbitration hearings for anti-doping rule violations are carried out by independent judges, who are not part of the U.S. Anti-Doping Agency. Hearings are heard before the American Arbitration Association (AAA) and the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). Witness testimony is given under oath, subject to penalty of perjury and cross examination. " The ruling makes for interesting reading, if you are interested in learning what it takes to persuade an arbiter, and what standard needed for a no-fault finding. This could be a new loophole for athletes who want to pico-dose.https://www.usada.org/wp-content/uploads/07_12_17-Gil-Roberts-AAA-FinalAward.pdf

Subway Surfers Addiction wrote:

Passionate kissing, you can't make this stuff up, still completely unreal.