BREAKING - WADA TO INVESTIGATE ALL NOP ATHLETES

Happy to see NOPers getting what they deserve. Hopefully the fancybear news is legit as well.

rekrunner wrote:

I could be persuaded to stop responding, but this depends completely on the good behavior of others.

As you can go back and see, through absolutely no provocation on my part, Armstronglivs insulted me.

Since your post, two others have directly insulted me.

practical questions wrote:

Please go away. We don't need more threads rekrunnered on here and you have nothing to add to the conversation. Your every thought is already overwhelmingly documented on this site.

So you only keep coming back because of the "bad behaviour" of others? Do you imagine you are some kind of schoolmaster, whose role is to censure others for what you have decided is their inappropriate conduct? Your self-importance is boundless.

As for your taking umbrage at feeling insulted, you said previously that you were not bothered by such things. But now you are. I am surprised. I thought a self-declared student of logic would choose to avoid the trap of self-contradiction.

However, the gist of your comment is that you keep responding because of the perceived slights, and not because you have anything to say of independent merit. A rare moment of candour on your part. But not accompanied by insight. You are the provocation - which invites the response it typically incurs. There is no more deserving target than the pompous bore.

Maybe that explains why I reply to you. Thanks for the insight.

I didn't say I was bothered by the insults from anonymous nobodies. I've long interpreted the invocation of my handle as an invitation to participate.

rekrunner wrote:

I could be persuaded to stop responding, but this depends completely on the good behavior of others.

As you can go back and see, through absolutely no provocation on my part, Armstronglivs insulted me.

Since your post, two others have directly insulted me.

Be a bigger person. Stop being so thin-skinned and responding to every provocation. I have faith that you can do it.

It is the only logical, rational way forward.

Another thread 'rekrunnered'.

Bye. ?️

This entire thread is as useless as the article its about. Zero details or sources, zero proof that anything is happening, and absolutely nothing suggested hasn’t already been done.. if you are unaware, these athletes are drug-tested year-round at least one a month if not more. There’s no facts to support the idea that even a single NOP athlete is doping. You look stupid, and you’re going to continue looking stupid ranting about something that makes no sense. On another topic, is microdosing even a real thing? Has it ever even happened before?

fortherecord wrote:

This entire thread is as useless as the article its about. Zero details or sources, zero proof that anything is happening, and absolutely nothing suggested hasn’t already been done.. if you are unaware, these athletes are drug-tested year-round at least one a month if not more. There’s no facts to support the idea that even a single NOP athlete is doping. You look stupid, and you’re going to continue looking stupid ranting about something that makes no sense. On another topic, is microdosing even a real thing? Has it ever even happened before?

Yes, microdosing is most certainly a thing, as are "mini" transfusions is ~250cc of prbcs.

Seems that there also might be some evidence somewhere of an NOP'er doing some dirty things:

Lol, yes! Other examples: Rupp likely doping, Farah likely doping, Rupp with elevated T/E ratio (yes, that's what Decker got banned for), etc. etc.

rekrunner wrote:

Maybe that explains why I reply to you. Thanks for the insight.

I didn't say I was bothered by the insults from anonymous nobodies. I've long interpreted the invocation of my handle as an invitation to participate.

But you just said it is provocation that keeps bringing you back. Contradiction again from the student of logic. If you are not yourself an "anonymous nobody" you had best out yourself. Or would that be embarrassing for you?

Centro Sauce wrote:

Salazar: "It isn't possible to be a world class runner or Olympic medalist without PEDs."

Maybe so, Alberto, but the right thing to do was to work to expose the cheaters

rather than join them in their wrong doing.

rekrunner wrote:

Maybe that explains why I reply to you. Thanks for the insight.

I didn't say I was bothered by the insults from anonymous nobodies. I've long interpreted the invocation of my handle as an invitation to participate.

No one summoned you on anther thread until the key words "Paula Radcliffe " and "NOP" popped up. You felt the need to set the record straight with the person using the handle "stinky finger".

Flying Carpet Salesman wrote:

rekrunner wrote:

Maybe that explains why I reply to you. Thanks for the insight.

I didn't say I was bothered by the insults from anonymous nobodies. I've long interpreted the invocation of my handle as an invitation to participate.

No one summoned you on anther thread until the key words "Paula Radcliffe " and "NOP" popped up. You felt the need to set the record straight with the person using the handle "stinky finger".

I guess at the end of the day, the decision to respond is up to me.

I see no one ever asks "I wonder what Flying Carpet Salesman" thinks?

Ciao.

Bye. ?️ wrote:

Another thread 'rekrunnered'.

Bye. ?️

practical questions wrote:

rekrunner wrote:

I could be persuaded to stop responding, but this depends completely on the good behavior of others.

As you can go back and see, through absolutely no provocation on my part, Armstronglivs insulted me.

Since your post, two others have directly insulted me.

Be a bigger person. Stop being so thin-skinned and responding to every provocation. I have faith that you can do it.

It is the only logical, rational way forward.

It would be rude to ignore people who are talking directly to me.

Two dead give-aways that I was never going to go anywhere, even after you asked so nicely:

"I could be persuaded" requires someone to be persuading.

Asking for the "Good behavior of others" was also a low probability.

I guess as a "grown man", with the same right to participate in a public forum as everyone else, I will post when I want to post, and I will go away when I want to go away.

Armstronglivs wrote:

rekrunner wrote:

Maybe that explains why I reply to you. Thanks for the insight.

I didn't say I was bothered by the insults from anonymous nobodies. I've long interpreted the invocation of my handle as an invitation to participate.

But you just said it is provocation that keeps bringing you back. Contradiction again from the student of logic. If you are not yourself an "anonymous nobody" you had best out yourself. Or would that be embarrassing for you?

You said "humbrage" and that I was bothered -- more imagination on your part.

You said "So you only keep coming back because of the "bad behaviour" of others" -- I did not say that either. I offered a proposition.

I said using my moniker is interpreted as an invitation to participate. But I don't need an invitation.

TrackCoach wrote:

Mark my words, "No NOP athlete will come up dirty".

NOP did it own testing which was more comprehensive than USADA. I don't understand WADA's purpose behind this, it will actual weaken their battle against Alberto when NOP athletes come up clean.

Wouldn't that be like the fox watching the hen house?

Inquiring minds want to know wrote:

Dril wrote:

I wish Nike paid me. I wouldn’t be living in my moms basement.

Are you rooming with rekrunner? ?

I always thought that Rekrunner was Coe's PA.

Let me make a practical contribution to address your questions below. I hope you find this response helpful. This is largely my personal understanding of the different organizations, so it may not be entirely accurate. I have the same question -- what is WADA going to do that USADA hasn't already done? Armstronglivs suggests the focus of the investigations will shift to the athletes, uncovering things that didn't surface with a focus on Salazar. This doesn't seem likely with respect to the L-Carnitine infusions, and allegations of testosterone administration to NOP athletes, particularly to Rupp, but who knows, maybe these and other allegations were not investigated enough to include NOP athletes. With respect to jurisdiction, it gets a little murky understanding when IOC is in control, versus the international IAAF, versus national USATF/USADA (or UKA/UKAD for Mo). With respect to IOC, they are generally in charge of the Olympics, not only track and field, but all Olympic events, including conducting anti-doping. If Mo Farah was caught doping at the Olympics, this would be the responsibility of the IOC, and not the IAAF, USADA or UKAD. I don't believe USADA or WADA could order sample retests of samples collected at the Olympics, without IOC approval. But the IOC would not be involved in IAAF events, like Diamond League, or World Championships, or US track events or trials or road races. Physical samples are stored at WADA approved labs. WADA was formed as a separate entity to gain independence from the IOC. (Many question if they are truly independent when some people are in both organizations -- the Economist recently released a video highlighting this.) WADA is best seen as a standards organizations, making rules for federations, countries, athletes, and labs. They perform regular audits to make sure WADA labs are compliant. Doping investigations is a new role for them, starting with investigating allegations of IAAF inaction to suspicion blood data, and including bribery/extortion of Russian athletes. With respect to historical anti-doping results, all of the relevant anti-doping data is entered into a WADA database (ADAMS), and as such, WADA would have access to all of the data that USADA could see with respect to US athletes subject to USADA. It's not clear to me if that includes foreign athletes training in Portland, but I assume so, and if not, WADA would be able to see that data.

practical questions wrote:

Baltsu wrote:

WADA can re-test the samples. Those samples are good for 8 years and they have done that kind of tests for example regarding the medalists in Peking 2008. So WADA can re-test all the samples of the NOP athletes that are still available.

Is that something that USADA couldn't request? Does WADA have physical control over these samples?

For some reason I thought the IOC had jurisdiction, but I admit I get confused about these issues sometimes.

That's reassuring wrote:

TrackCoach wrote:

Mark my words, "No NOP athlete will come up dirty".

NOP did it own testing which was more comprehensive than USADA. I don't understand WADA's purpose behind this, it will actual weaken their battle against Alberto when NOP athletes come up clean.

Wouldn't that be like the fox watching the hen house?

That's why it's so hard to catch them: they know exactly when they are glowing. While glowing, they would for example not hear the doorbell when the tester comes, or DNS (DNF?) at a race.