Another Kenyan banned

Coevett wrote:

Oh, and if the Australian Olympic team organizers weren't so incompetent, Herb Elliott would have entered the marathon for a laugh and likely destroyed him in Rome.

Armstronglivs wrote:

dhd wrote:

How original! You never said that before!

You don't disagree.

Py579 wrote:

Used for treating (skin/joint) inflammation. I doubt it gives noticeable performance benefit.

From Wikipedia:

"Triamcinolone acetonide as an intra-articular injectable has been used to treat a variety of musculoskeletal conditions. When applied to the skin as a topical ointment, it is used to mitigate blistering from poison ivy, oak, and sumac."

"Triamcinolone acetonide is a synthetic corticosteroid medication used topically to treat various skin conditions, to relieve the discomfort of mouth sores, and by injection into joints to treat various joint conditions. It is also injected into lesions to treat inflammation in some parts of the body, particularly the skin. "

rekrunner wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

There isn't a significant difference, except to a cherry-picking doping apologist. T and F is just another dirty sport. Nothing you say changes that.

You picked these cherries of track and field and bodybuilding.

Just like the trivial assertion that "doping exists", all sports are dirty to some degree. But you've just confirmed that you cannot comprehend that 0.5% and 18.5% are significantly different degrees, because you are blinded by your own mythology. After five decades, the old dog cannot learn anything new.

You keep attributing your own thoughts to WADA, but to the extent of WADA's knowledge, athletics is about 1-2% dirty -- out of the athletes that are tested. That's where the knowledge ends, and the myths begin.

esr wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

You don't disagree.

I don't. You are just a spammer now.

Detective P wrote:

I have a hard time believing that you're serious. 😄 Sometimes I wonder if you're getting paid to create confusion in these conversations.

Armstronglivs wrote:

I didn't pick any cherries; it was WADA that lumps T and F with some of the worst sports for doping. Only a doping denier such as yourself maintains the extent of doping is confined to the few who are caught. The confidential athlete surveys show the numbers are far greater than that. Nothing you say on the subject can be taken seriously.

Cortisone jabs wrote:

have none of you had a cortisone injection for an injury before? Stuff makes you feel high for like a month afterwards. Similar feeling to methamphetamine but without the comedown.

rekrunner wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

I didn't pick any cherries; it was WADA that lumps T and F with some of the worst sports for doping. Only a doping denier such as yourself maintains the extent of doping is confined to the few who are caught. The confidential athlete surveys show the numbers are far greater than that. Nothing you say on the subject can be taken seriously.

You keep falsely attributing something to WADA, but it only comes from you.

I didn't talk about the extent of doping, but the extent of knowledge. We don't know the extent of doping because the extent of knowledge is limited. All of your strongly held mythical beliefs are based on things that are not known.

Armstronglivs wrote:

We know many more athletes dope than are caught - that is "knowledge" - except to one such as yourself. The WADA comments were published by them but that you are unaware of it shows the limitations on your "research". All you show is confirmation bias.

Armstronglivs wrote:

esr wrote:

I don't. You are just a spammer now.

You didn't dispute the point I made. If I was wrong you would have.

rekrunner wrote:

So the "dishonesty" all hinges on the word "could"? It could also be "1 in 1", or "1 in 100".

rekrunner wrote:

What dopers try to do doesn't begin to answer any of my questions -- how many dopers have run 2:07 because of a higher than natural hematocrit? or sub-2:05?

Who already answered "normally the athletes have too little"? While Jeptoo is an example of an East African athlete taking EPO, nothing answers, and nobody has answered, whether she needed it.

do the research unbiased please wrote:

rekrunner wrote:

So the "dishonesty" all hinges on the word "could"? It could also be "1 in 1", or "1 in 100".

Interesting. "dishonesty" comes from you, about your own post. But yes, the answer is yes.

esr wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

You didn't dispute the point I made. If I was wrong you would have.

Can you read? No, you can't.