The "common man" has no reason to dope as he isn't trying to be an elite athlete. All this escapes you. You never see doping amongst professional athletes but readily fantasize about it amongst non athletes. You are beyond ridiculous.
I already gave you many reasons: treating cold and flu and allergy symptoms; dietary supplements for intending to improve health and well-being; going to the doctor for routine treatment of injuries and ailments.
The athlete is educated about these risks, while the common man has no reason to change his behavior to comply with rules he is not subject to.
You are applying your own custom definition of doping, rather than adopting WADA's. The way WADA has expanded the meaning of doping, virtually everyone has doped.
I can see doping in professional athletes only when it is shown. Many athletes are accused of doping without any such showing, usually with dubious ignorant rationalizations like "we don't know who is not doping".
The "common man" takes prescribed drugs for medical ailments. That doesn't make him a doper. You are beyond witless.
Thats when you report, report, re-report... then you register the name . I know it's tough for you when your fairy tale of beef burritos magically turning into wild pig nut burritos isn't shared
I don't do any of those things, and I don't have any fairy tale that beef burritos turn into wild pig nut burritos.
Ah, but you do, constant percentages and likelihood (dare I say, Presumptions) of a barely eaten beef burrito ordered from the shady Mexican who can't read having nandro-enhanced boar offal organs. Or something equally absurd, I can't keep up without the pop up book and snow globe.
It's true I am registered. But the truth has stopped there.
That's correct. The truth stops at you being registered. It isn't in anything you say. But you are the biggest doping denier troll in these boards. You've made a career out of it.
I confirm doping exists, as you often say, throughout all sports and throughout all levels of athletes. Much of what I say isn't so much me saying my own opinions, as repeating what other official sources have said.
When it comes to denial, I have only ever denied baseless myths, and then only after asking for supporting evidence. If you could ever bring any tangible evidence to any of your fantastic yet uninformed claims, it would be different.
If this was on a tape it could be sold as a cure for insomnia.
I can only conclude, as you are unable to contest it, that Tygart has not compromised his expertise, as you imagined, and that the 30% ballpark figure must be pretty accurate.
The "common man" takes prescribed drugs for medical ailments. That doesn't make him a doper. You are beyond witless.
On the contrary, taking prescribed drugs can certainly make him a doper, when the prescription is a WADA banned drug.
And the common man takes many over the counter non-prescribed drugs which can also make him a doper, when it contains WADA banned drugs.
And the common man can take many supplements containing, or contaminated with small amounts of WADA banned substances, which makes him a doper.
The reason you can't support any of your arguments, and must resort to personal jabs, I guess to fool yourself into feeling superior, is, sadly, because you don't have any real information or knowledge about the things you vehemently argue. You don't understand the low threshold WADA applies to consider someone a doper, and the broad distribution of many of the WADA banned substances in products available to every common man -- and woman.
I don't do any of those things, and I don't have any fairy tale that beef burritos turn into wild pig nut burritos.
Ah, but you do, constant percentages and likelihood (dare I say, Presumptions) of a barely eaten beef burrito ordered from the shady Mexican who can't read having nandro-enhanced boar offal organs. Or something equally absurd, I can't keep up without the pop up book and snow globe.
None of this suggests I reported anyone or registered their name, or that I ever argued anyone ate a beef burrito.
It's easier to keep up when you just stick to the facts, without all the imaginary claims.
I only ever reported the latest research on the topic, and all the areas of doubt expressed and accepted by the CAS, and what the researchers themselves found, and the WADA guidance on the topic.
Ah, but you do, constant percentages and likelihood (dare I say, Presumptions) of a barely eaten beef burrito ordered from the shady Mexican who can't read having nandro-enhanced boar offal organs. Or something equally absurd, I can't keep up without the pop up book and snow globe.
None of this suggests I reported anyone or registered their name, or that I ever argued anyone ate a beef burrito.
It's easier to keep up when you just stick to the facts, without all the imaginary claims.
I only ever reported the latest research on the topic, and all the areas of doubt expressed and accepted by the CAS, and what the researchers themselves found, and the WADA guidance on the topic.
Research on pork offal has zero to do with beef burritos.
If this was on a tape it could be sold as a cure for insomnia.
I can only conclude, as you are unable to contest it, that Tygart has not compromised his expertise, as you imagined, and that the 30% ballpark figure must be pretty accurate.
USADA is known to have covered up US doping.
This post was edited 15 seconds after it was posted.
The "common man" takes prescribed drugs for medical ailments. That doesn't make him a doper. You are beyond witless.
On the contrary, taking prescribed drugs can certainly make him a doper, when the prescription is a WADA banned drug.
And the common man takes many over the counter non-prescribed drugs which can also make him a doper, when it contains WADA banned drugs.
And the common man can take many supplements containing, or contaminated with small amounts of WADA banned substances, which makes him a doper.
The reason you can't support any of your arguments, and must resort to personal jabs, I guess to fool yourself into feeling superior, is, sadly, because you don't have any real information or knowledge about the things you vehemently argue. You don't understand the low threshold WADA applies to consider someone a doper, and the broad distribution of many of the WADA banned substances in products available to every common man -- and woman.
So you still can't tell the difference between taking drugs prescribed for medical issues and taking drugs to dope.
None of this suggests I reported anyone or registered their name, or that I ever argued anyone ate a beef burrito.
It's easier to keep up when you just stick to the facts, without all the imaginary claims.
I only ever reported the latest research on the topic, and all the areas of doubt expressed and accepted by the CAS, and what the researchers themselves found, and the WADA guidance on the topic.
Research on pork offal has zero to do with beef burritos.
I never talked about beef burritos. You are the one who keeps bringing them up.
I mainly referred to statements in a report made by the CAS and by findings made by researchers in their published work, and to controlling documents found at WADA's website.
I can only conclude, as you are unable to contest it, that Tygart has not compromised his expertise, as you imagined, and that the 30% ballpark figure must be pretty accurate.
USADA is known to have covered up US doping.
Is that true? The reporting I saw is that they didn't cover it up, but on the contrary, open-kimono reported the US doping to WADA.
The question raised here though is independent: whether USADA accurately determines when, and how many, positive tests "end up being innocent source positive".
WADA confirms many positive tests are in fact permitted by WADA, for example, because there is a valid medical reason including a TUE, or the drug was taken by a permitted route, or during permitted out-of-competition timeframe, etc.
So you still can't tell the difference between taking drugs prescribed for medical issues and taking drugs to dope.
Not just me -- the WADA Code doesn't make any such distinction.
WADA doesn't ban just the athletes taking drugs to dope, but bans athletes who unintentionally or unknowingly "doped". For medical reasons, athletes must look for specific permitted alternatives, or apply a TUE if no alternative exists. The common man/woman need not concern himself/herself with such rules and restrictions, and is free to violate any and all of the WADA rules without any repercussions.
I didn't just talk about drugs prescribed for medical issues, but also many unprescribed drugs available over the counter, or on the market. Banned substances are known to be in meat purchased in stores and restaurants.
You asked me what reasons the common man/woman would have for taking WADA banned drugs, and there are many that do not include doping for athletic performance, and there is no reason for the common man/woman to take any special precautions.
So you still can't tell the difference between taking drugs prescribed for medical issues and taking drugs to dope.
Not just me -- the WADA Code doesn't make any such distinction.
WADA doesn't ban just the athletes taking drugs to dope, but bans athletes who unintentionally or unknowingly "doped". For medical reasons, athletes must look for specific permitted alternatives, or apply a TUE if no alternative exists. The common man/woman need not concern himself/herself with such rules and restrictions, and is free to violate any and all of the WADA rules without any repercussions.
I didn't just talk about drugs prescribed for medical issues, but also many unprescribed drugs available over the counter, or on the market. Banned substances are known to be in meat purchased in stores and restaurants.
You asked me what reasons the common man/woman would have for taking WADA banned drugs, and there are many that do not include doping for athletic performance, and there is no reason for the common man/woman to take any special precautions.
You really have no idea what you are talking about. WADA doesn't ban drugs per se but the use of specified drugs in sports. It has no power and no authority over individuals who aren't competing in sports. Those members of the public who are taking medicines that are banned by WADA in sports aren't competing - they are actually unwell, which is why these medicines have been prescribed them. Athletes taking those drugs aren't sick - they couldn't compete if they were - they are using the drugs for a purpose they were not intended for.
But, as I said, you see every kind of doping amongst those who aren't competing in sports but never recognise it amongst athletes. Your absurdities are without limits.
Is that true? The reporting I saw is that they didn't cover it up, but on the contrary, open-kimono reported the US doping to WADA.
The question raised here though is independent: whether USADA accurately determines when, and how many, positive tests "end up being innocent source positive".
WADA confirms many positive tests are in fact permitted by WADA, for example, because there is a valid medical reason including a TUE, or the drug was taken by a permitted route, or during permitted out-of-competition timeframe, etc.
From WADA:
The World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) responds to a Reuters story of 7 August 2024 exposing a scheme whereby the U.S. Anti-Doping Agency (USADA) allowed athletes who had doped, to compete for years, in at least one case without ever publishing or sanctioning their anti-doping rule violations, in direct contravention of the World Anti-Doping Code and USADA’s own rules.
This USADA scheme threatened the integrity of sporting competition, which the Code seeks to protect. By operating it, USADA was in clear breach of the rules. Contrary to the claims made by USADA, WADA did not sign off on this practice of permitting drug cheats to compete for years on the promise that they would try to obtain incriminating evidence against others.
The World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) responds to a Reuters story of 7 August 2024 exposing a scheme whereby the U.S. Anti-Doping Agency (USADA) allowed athletes who had doped, to compete for years, in at least one case without ever publishing or sanctioning their anti-doping rule violations, in direct contravention of the World Anti-Doping Code and USADA’s own rules.
This USADA scheme threatened the integrity of sporting competition, which the Code seeks to protect. By operating it, USADA was in clear breach of the rules. Contrary to the claims made by USADA, WADA did not sign off on this practice of permitting drug cheats to compete for years on the promise that they would try to obtain incriminating evidence against others.
The fact is that WADA was made aware of the doping because USADA informed them -- the opposite of "covered up US doping".
USADA: "WADA and the IF were also aware of the athletes’ cooperation, including the athletes’ return to competition"
"WADA did not initiate a compliance case against USADA as they should have if they truly believed we failed to follow the rules."
But maybe it is Reuters and WADA who compromised their expertise. Reuters withdrew the story two months ago, for not meeting their standards of bias:
Reuters: "a post-publication investigation determined that Reuters standards for newsgathering were not met, specifically as they pertain to avoiding the appearance of bias in our sourcing."
USADA: "the reporting relied on a WADA spokesperson as the source without doing sufficient diligence to confirm accurate and truthful information."
You really have no idea what you are talking about. WADA doesn't ban drugs per se but the use of specified drugs in sports. It has no power and no authority over individuals who aren't competing in sports. Those members of the public who are taking medicines that are banned by WADA in sports aren't competing - they are actually unwell, which is why these medicines have been prescribed them. Athletes taking those drugs aren't sick - they couldn't compete if they were - they are using the drugs for a purpose they were not intended for.
But, as I said, you see every kind of doping amongst those who aren't competing in sports but never recognise it amongst athletes. Your absurdities are without limits.
It looks like you are the one who has no idea what I am talking about, not to mention forgetting what you were talking about originally.
Athletes get sick too, and if they don't navigate their treatment right, they can get banned -- also in the off-season when they are not competing. According to WADA reporting, many Kenyans have been caught doping as a result of a lack of diligence and paperwork during medical treatment of illnesses and injuries.
While you seem blindingly focused on drugs as medicines for the sick, despite all the many other examples I gave, WADA doesn't just ban medicinal drugs, and, using WADA's expanded definition of doping, which widens the umbrella, the common man/woman frequently dopes also when they are not sick and not seeking medical treatment.
I have always recognized doping among athletes every time you have shown it. I recognize the risk of doping also in non-athletic and non-competition environments, because that is a part of anti-doping awareness, and an often repeated warning to all athletes, including in a footnote in the WADA Code, and other WADA Documents.