Tygart says 30% of positives are not intentional

TYgart · 2025-11-30T04:01:35-05:00

In the science of sport podcast at around 1:05:55h Tygart says:[i]We'll have let's just ballpark 30% of our positive tests and up being innocent source positive - so meat contamination or water or kissing or intimacy or using your roommate's armsleeve or whatever.[/i][i]Not intentional cheats.[/i] One third of positives just from eating the wrong food or kissing is way higher than I expected it to be. To be fair: The quote is with regards to regular untargeted testing - for targeted testing after an investigation he estimates that about all of the positives are intentional cheats.I can't post links, so you'll have to search for it on Spotify yourself .

Pro News/Info/Results

Reply New New Thread

Moderation Moderation Information Moderation Information & Rules

Page 9 of 9

1 8 9

Next Last

5 months ago 01/02/2026 2:53pm EST

re: TYgart

Tygart's blatant lie indicates corruption from the top down. We already know some athletes are protected and others can negotiate a plea deal to get off with a less severe or no punishment.

For example, Shacarri only had to miss the Olympics instead of 4 years with a stipulation of "marijuana" to also further protect her and her future monetary earnings. The cover up ended up making her richer but also notably helped USATF as they know too many high profiles positives would additionally kill their own income.

5 months ago 01/02/2026 8:51pm EST

re: rekrunner

rekrunner wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
If athletes are taking drugs for other than medical reasons they do it for performance enhancement. There is no other reason. So if it is a banned drugs the safest assumption is the drug was used to enhance performance. The degree it did so is absolutely irrelevant. The alternative conclusion is that the athlete is an idiot for taking a banned drug when it doesn't aid performance and WADA are also idiots for listing the drug as having the potential for aiding performance when it doesn't do so. Athletes don't take drugs that may harm their health if they gain nothing from it. In the same vein, athletes train because they know it will aid performance just as the shoes they wear will do so and the food they consume. Of course, to you athletes only become idiots and naive dupes when it comes to doping. They strangely know how to train, what to eat, and what to put on their feet.
None of that is relevant, because no one was talking about the reasons of athletes who take drugs intentionally. We were talking about the "unintentional positive" (see thread subject).

If it isn't relevant then nor is your comment below, which it was a response to.

"This presumes that the drug is performance enhancing and that it actually helped the athlete to be faster. "

5 months ago 01/03/2026 2:57am EST

re: Armstronglivs

Armstronglivs wrote:
rekrunner wrote:
None of that is relevant, because no one was talking about the reasons of athletes who take drugs intentionally. We were talking about the "unintentional positive" (see thread subject).
If it isn't relevant then nor is your comment below, which it was a response to.
"This presumes that the drug is performance enhancing and that it actually helped the athlete to be faster. "

"best post" and "ban them anyway" and I were all talking about the unintentional positives.

The intent behind intentional positives has absolutely nothing to do with unintentional positives. Do you genuinely not comprehend the complete disconnect?

5 months ago 01/03/2026 6:19am EST

re: rekrunner

rekrunner wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
If it isn't relevant then nor is your comment below, which it was a response to.
"This presumes that the drug is performance enhancing and that it actually helped the athlete to be faster. "
"best post" and "ban them anyway" and I were all talking about the unintentional positives.
The intent behind intentional positives has absolutely nothing to do with unintentional positives. Do you genuinely not comprehend the complete disconnect?

There isn't a disconnect. Whether "intentional" or "unintentional" the use of a banned drug can be presumed to have been performance enhancing. That's what these drugs do. Those qualities don't miraculously disappear because a drug may have been taken accidentally (which it probably wasn't - athletes don't trip over drugs on the street.) But the degree the drug enhanced performance doesn't actually matter; if they are banned because they have that "potential" it can be safely assumed they will probably have had that effect. That is why they have come to WADA'S attention and why they are listed. Athletes don't take them just to risk their health. If they have taken them unintentionally then they have likely benefitted.

This post was edited 44 seconds after it was posted.

5 months ago 01/03/2026 1:05pm EST

re: Armstronglivs

Armstronglivs wrote:
There isn't a disconnect. Whether "intentional" or "unintentional" the use of a banned drug can be presumed to have been performance enhancing. That's what these drugs do. Those qualities don't miraculously disappear because a drug may have been taken accidentally (which it probably wasn't - athletes don't trip over drugs on the street.) But the degree the drug enhanced performance doesn't actually matter; if they are banned because they have that "potential" it can be safely assumed they will probably have had that effect. That is why they have come to WADA'S attention and why they are listed. Athletes don't take them just to risk their health. If they have taken them unintentionally then they have likely benefitted.

The disconnect was assuming the reasons for intentional doping, responding to a comment about unintentional doping.

Now you are simply repeating what I said: "This presumes that the drug is performance enhancing ...". We often have to presume things because we don't know or cannot prove them.

Page 9 of 9

1 8 9

Next Last

What People Are Talking About On LetsRun

No top threads at the moment. Check back soon.

Reply Replying to

Username

Password

Leave the password field blank to post anonymously.

Post Preview

By posting you acknowledge that you have read and abide by our Terms and Conditions.

Remember me on this device.

Tygart says 30% of positives are not intentional

This thread has already been deleted.

You have been subscribed.

Tygart says 30% of positives are not intentional

Jump To A Page

Follow Steve The Addict OFFICIAL -----^^^^^

Block Steve The Addict OFFICIAL -----^^^^^

Follow Armstronglivs

Block Armstronglivs

Follow rekrunner

Block rekrunner

Follow Armstronglivs

Block Armstronglivs

Follow rekrunner

Block rekrunner

Jump To A Page

This thread has already been deleted.

Reply Replying to

You have been subscribed.