Isn't that the purpose of the rule though.... to make sure athletes get tested. If the athletes don't make themselves available to test, and lue about it, or doctor emails, they should not be allowed to compete.
Sure. He violated the rules in a contract he agreed to, and should suffer the consequences. He has accepted that, as have I. The point is that these failures do not mean he took any banned substances.
Tygart told us "... this case, does not involve the use of prohibited drugs ...". Posts that presume he is also doping with prohibited drugs require personal fantasy, e.g.:"I'm shocked a guy that looks like this is doping...", and "He's jacked." and "Since he looks like every other decathlete I am picking they are all doping."
The case "does not involve prohibited drugs" BECAUSE THE ATHLETE WAS NOT AVAILABLE TO BE TESTED. It's a bit difficult, is it not, to determine what he might have been using if he ducked the tests? You really are as thick as a bunch of bricks. But since he avoided the tests and offered no legitimate excuse it is a fair conclusion that he did so because he didn't want to get caught doping. There's every possibility that he was using the "prohibited drugs" for which you and Tygart could find no evidence. It seems to have escaped you both that it is hard to detect what wasn't able to be tested for. That's what avoiding tests will do. Hence, the violation.
Sure. He violated the rules in a contract he agreed to, and should suffer the consequences. He has accepted that, as have I. The point is that these failures do not mean he took any banned substances.
Tygart told us "... this case, does not involve the use of prohibited drugs ...". Posts that presume he is also doping with prohibited drugs require personal fantasy, e.g.:"I'm shocked a guy that looks like this is doping...", and "He's jacked." and "Since he looks like every other decathlete I am picking they are all doping."
The case "does not involve prohibited drugs" BECAUSE THE ATHLETE WAS NOT AVAILABLE TO BE TESTED. It's a bit difficult, is it not, to determine what he might have been using if he ducked the tests? You really are as thick as a bunch of bricks. But since he avoided the tests and offered no legitimate excuse it is a fair conclusion that he did so because he didn't want to get caught doping. There's every possibility that he was using the "prohibited drugs" for which you and Tygart could find no evidence. It seems to have escaped you both that it is hard to detect what wasn't able to be tested for. That's what avoiding tests will do. Hence, the violation.
We don’t know he ducked the tests.
You have no evidence he avoided the tests.
Have you got access to the case notes?
It is all down to your own suppositions.
You make things up to suit your own prejudices.
Repeat of the question ; what evidence do you have that he avoided the tests. The offence was miss tests and not avoided tests.
There is an other offence for test avoidance and he was not charged with such.
But then you are proud to claim that you have never seen any need to a actually read the WADA CODE.
You just make things up. Why don’t you just admit that you don’t know why he had the rule violations?
Perhaps I need to speak very s-l-o-w-l-y so you understand. If he had had legitimate reasons for any of his missed tests he would not have had a whereabouts violation. Secondly, if he was unaware that he was missing tests that he himself had chosen as the time for when the testers would call then he is mentally incompetent. No one says that - and least of all the athlete concerned. So what does that leave? He was doping but was trying not to get caught. Case closed.
You continue to invent that if he did not avoid the test then he is mentally incompetent.
Are there no limits to your lack of understanding the WADA CODE?
The only reason, only, for someone to avoid a test is because they know they will test positive. These people's job requires them to be in a specific place at a specific time for testing, it isn't some surprise. Every missed test is a positive to me and should be treated as such.
The only reason, only, for someone to avoid a test is because they know they will test positive. These people's job requires them to be in a specific place at a specific time for testing, it isn't some surprise. Every missed test is a positive to me and should be treated as such.
What evidence do you have that he avoided the tests?
You also fail to grasp that for many it is not a job for them and they will have full time jobs outside of sport.
Sure. He violated the rules in a contract he agreed to, and should suffer the consequences. He has accepted that, as have I. The point is that these failures do not mean he took any banned substances.
Tygart told us "... this case, does not involve the use of prohibited drugs ...". Posts that presume he is also doping with prohibited drugs require personal fantasy, e.g.:"I'm shocked a guy that looks like this is doping...", and "He's jacked." and "Since he looks like every other decathlete I am picking they are all doping."
The case "does not involve prohibited drugs" BECAUSE THE ATHLETE WAS NOT AVAILABLE TO BE TESTED. It's a bit difficult, is it not, to determine what he might have been using if he ducked the tests? You really are as thick as a bunch of bricks. But since he avoided the tests and offered no legitimate excuse it is a fair conclusion that he did so because he didn't want to get caught doping. There's every possibility that he was using the "prohibited drugs" for which you and Tygart could find no evidence. It seems to have escaped you both that it is hard to detect what wasn't able to be tested for. That's what avoiding tests will do. Hence, the violation.
Thank you for sharing your personal fantasies, and proving my point.
The only reason, only, for someone to avoid a test is because they know they will test positive. These people's job requires them to be in a specific place at a specific time for testing, it isn't some surprise. Every missed test is a positive to me and should be treated as such.
What evidence do you have that he avoided the tests?
You also fail to grasp that for many it is not a job for them and they will have full time jobs outside of sport.
He was not available for tests - at a time he had himself designated under the whereabouts rule - for which HE HAD NO LEGITIMATE EXCUSE. If he had such excuse he would not have committed a whereabouts violation. Liar soorer, you have to be the most obtuse poster ever on these boards.
The case "does not involve prohibited drugs" BECAUSE THE ATHLETE WAS NOT AVAILABLE TO BE TESTED. It's a bit difficult, is it not, to determine what he might have been using if he ducked the tests? You really are as thick as a bunch of bricks. But since he avoided the tests and offered no legitimate excuse it is a fair conclusion that he did so because he didn't want to get caught doping. There's every possibility that he was using the "prohibited drugs" for which you and Tygart could find no evidence. It seems to have escaped you both that it is hard to detect what wasn't able to be tested for. That's what avoiding tests will do. Hence, the violation.
Thank you for sharing your personal fantasies, and proving my point.
If you think I have proven your point you have an IQ of 85. That must be it.
If you think I have proven your point you have an IQ of 85. That must be it.
Doubling down on personal fantasy...
Like your fellow inmate, liar soorer of a thousand names, you have ADDS - Antidoping Derangement Syndrome - in which no one who commits a violation is ever doping. A terminal disease.
Like your fellow inmate, liar soorer of a thousand names, you have ADDS - Antidoping Derangement Syndrome - in which no one who commits a violation is ever doping. A terminal disease.
What happened to the Armstronglivs from page 5, clinging so tightly to the facts?
Bringing this thread back on the rails, the Chief of the prosecution said "... this case, does not involve the use of prohibited drugs ...".
Former nfl player. No surprise. Only letdown is it further confirms nfl doesn't test or bust their players to maintain a high level of fan interest. Public relations trumps integrity in the business world.
Like your fellow inmate, liar soorer of a thousand names, you have ADDS - Antidoping Derangement Syndrome - in which no one who commits a violation is ever doping. A terminal disease.
You make things up.
I have never ever said that.
Strict liability causes those who are not cheats to be sanctioned. You know this: so why do you make things up.
What evidence do you have that he avoided the tests?
You also fail to grasp that for many it is not a job for them and they will have full time jobs outside of sport.
He was not available for tests - at a time he had himself designated under the whereabouts rule - for which HE HAD NO LEGITIMATE EXCUSE. If he had such excuse he would not have committed a whereabouts violation. Liar soorer, you have to be the most obtuse poster ever on these boards.
The only reason, only, for someone to avoid a test is because they know they will test positive. These people's job requires them to be in a specific place at a specific time for testing, it isn't some surprise. Every missed test is a positive to me and should be treated as such.
What evidence do you have that he avoided the tests?
You also fail to grasp that for many it is not a job for them and they will have full time jobs outside of sport.
Like your fellow inmate, liar soorer of a thousand names, you have ADDS - Antidoping Derangement Syndrome - in which no one who commits a violation is ever doping. A terminal disease.
What happened to the Armstronglivs from page 5, clinging so tightly to the facts?
Bringing this thread back on the rails, the Chief of the prosecution said "... this case, does not involve the use of prohibited drugs ...".
He didn't add - but he should have for the morons here - "because the athlete did not make himself available for testing as he should have". Because he was in all likelihood taking prohibited drugs. He had no excuses that were accepted for missing those tests.
What happened to the Armstronglivs from page 5, clinging so tightly to the facts?
Bringing this thread back on the rails, the Chief of the prosecution said "... this case, does not involve the use of prohibited drugs ...".
He didn't add - but he should have for the morons here - "because the athlete did not make himself available for testing as he should have". Because he was in all likelihood taking prohibited drugs. He had no excuses that were accepted for missing those tests.
Learnt nothing yet again have you ?
You just keep inventing stuff to suit your prejudices.
Then; you call anyone a moron if they don’t have the same prejudices as you.
What happened to the Armstronglivs from page 5, clinging so tightly to the facts?
Bringing this thread back on the rails, the Chief of the prosecution said "... this case, does not involve the use of prohibited drugs ...".
He didn't add - but he should have for the morons here - "because the athlete did not make himself available for testing as he should have". Because he was in all likelihood taking prohibited drugs. He had no excuses that were accepted for missing those tests.
I think no one disputes his obligations from being in the RTP -- that goes without saying.
We've updated our BetterRunningShoes.com web site to make it easier to find good deals on the best shoes. To keep it great we need new shoe reviews from you.
Fill out a review to be entered into a drawing to win a free pair of shoes.