Come on man. I've got an IV line running beet juice and bicarbonate. I'm not going to die, am I?
Come on man. I've got an IV line running beet juice and bicarbonate. I'm not going to die, am I?
I told you to take them IN...your mouth...not IV.
Did you confuse IV with IN again?
I hope that at least you made sure that your beet juice for your IV was sterile.
I also recommend the Arm & Hammer brand for baking soda...as it just feels so "smooth" when I am running compared to other brands I have used.
Like Matthew Kisorio said after using EPO injections...running would feel so "smooth".
just a coincidence
Wall Street Journal:
"USADA isn’t broadcasting the news. But it has created a new exemption for masters and amateur athletes who are prescribed banned drugs. Called a Recreational Competitor Therapeutic Use Exemption, it allows masters and amateur athletes to compete in low-level competitions while taking banned substances. An athlete must prove to USADA that he or she is unlikely to actually win one of these amateur races, in addition to proving a medical need for an illicit chemical. "
So you take the drug, and you are really " smooth ". You are winning the race, but you slow down before the finish line and come in second so you don't violate the Recreational TUE.
More stupid shite. Jager will be shooting up at 80.
Thanks USADumbA$$es.
What are you talking about?
This new exemption category was all my great idea.
Wow, what a coincidence, you living at 7,000 feet and all.
The watchband on my old Timex broke so I replaced it with an ostrich leather strap. The ostrich leather MADE MY WATCH RUN FASTER.
Previously I was running 6 x 800 in 2:50-52 (please excuse my slowness, I don't drink beet juice). But now my watch says I run them in 2:30-32.
THIS OSTRICH STUFF IS AMAZING!!!!
Anyone notice the course change when Radcliffe ran 2:15:25 compared to today's course, where the athletes did not hug the final turn and cones were positioned to center road?
dlk wrote:
Anyone notice the course change when Radcliffe ran 2:15:25 compared to today's course, where the athletes did not hug the final turn and cones were positioned to center road?
No. But that explains why the current Brits stayed over 15 minutes behind her national record.
If only Paula would have raced on a fast course, such as Berlin, than she'd have a 2:13 world record!
Despite the recent IAAF extortion attempts (which ultimately failed) enabled by a small named few no longer in power, the IAAF and WADA, as anti-doping organizations, remain the leaders in the fight. This is supported by many observations, e.g. testing, target testing strategy, number of ABP sanctions, anti-doping research, advances in rules, etc. If you disagree, simply answer which organizations do more?As has been previously pointed out, the kind of transparency you ask for, besides potentially harming clean athletes, is unprecedented, unnecessary, unwarranted, and could even set anti-doping efforts back, if organizations with limited funds need to invest them in responding to public questions explaining their actions and decisions within accepted standards. By all means, reform and setup independent expert cross-checks and controls, but the public cannot "efficiently" play the "expert" role in this process.When looking at "their leadership, ethics committee, "flagship laboratory", and recent "promotions"", real observational findings of any actual wrong-doing, outside of Diack's secret circle, despite detailed independent investigations, are scarce.It's not clear which "IAAF investigation" you refer to, and what you think the IAAF decided on its own, or preferred:- The IAAF formed it's own detailed response to the ARD and Sunday Times allegations.- In April 2014, the IAAF newly formed "ethics commission" began investigating an independent complaint brought to it by an IAAF Member, Sean Wallace-Jones on behalf of a Russian agent Andrey Baranov.- The IAAF agreed to fully cooperate with WADA's announced independent investigation of the ARD allegations in Dec. 2014By Dec. 2014, two independent, but overlapping, investigations were underway. The IAAF didn't express a preference but fully supported both.There is no contradiction between:- a statement from Coe that he was unaware of Diack's closely held secret- a statement from Coe that Paula's data was not the data of a blood doper, so could not be involved in any alleged cover-up
casual obsever wrote:
larkimm wrote:That's your theory, and I understand you believe it. I don't.
I know you don't. That "theory" explains a lot of occurrences that you treat as coincidences, so you see no need for such a theory (I'd call that observation, but ok).
It also explains why the IAAF preferred to investigate itself rather than asking for an independent review, and why the IAAF then wrote its own report with this special tone that even you, larkimm, criticized.
btw, you have never mentioned how you view Coe's self-contradicting remarks about him
a) of course not knowing anything about all the cover-ups, corruption and destroyed samples
and
b) of course knowing exactly that a certain athlete wasn't involved in any of the above (of which he had no knowledge, remember?).
"And what is also clear is that as early as 1988 bodies were beginning to pile up on mortuary slabs as athletes in several sports began to experiment with EPO and die in their sleep. Gen-EPO was taking its first, faltering steps."
rekrunner wrote:
There is no contradiction between:
- a statement from Coe that he was unaware of Diack's closely held secret
- a statement from Coe that Paula's data was not the data of a blood doper, so could not be involved in any alleged cover-up
casual obsever wrote:I know you don't. That "theory" explains a lot of occurrences that you treat as coincidences, so you see no need for such a theory (I'd call that observation, but ok).
It also explains why the IAAF preferred to investigate itself rather than asking for an independent review, and why the IAAF then wrote its own report with this special tone that even you, larkimm, criticized.
btw, you have never mentioned how you view Coe's self-contradicting remarks about him
a) of course not knowing anything about all the cover-ups, corruption and destroyed samples
and
b) of course knowing exactly that a certain athlete wasn't involved in any of the above (of which he had no knowledge, remember?).
I was going to post more or less the same.
Personally I do think it is unwise (but no more) for Coe to publicly state that he knows athletes are clean. He can know no more than you or I do - i.e. that there have been no adverse findings made against them. But its hard to take individual personalities out of the equation. Coe and Radcliffe are clearly more than just professional acquaintances being from a similar generation of outstanding British middle-distance runners. None of that means that either Coe or Radcliffe are definitely clean (or definitely dirty for that matter).
Understanding what I do about the arrangements within the IAAF, its clear that it was entirely possible for a Vice President to be unaware of the corrupt dealings of the President. Not only possible, highly likely actually. Corruption tends to be well hidden.
Given what we know about the IAAF today, I personally can sleep easy believing that if there was a single official, laboratory technician, disgruntled former employee etc etc within the IAAF that had information that Paula (or Coe, or any other high profile athlete) doped the news of that would have tumbled out already.
Ultimately we all want athletics to be clean and well governed, so its healthy we have this debate.
'Given what we know about the IAAF today, I personally can sleep easy believing that if there was a single official, laboratory technician, disgruntled former employee etc etc within the IAAF that had information that Paula (or Coe, or any other high profile athlete) doped the news of that would have tumbled out already.'
When has this ever happened?
Well once and that was a group doping (in the clear case) rather than an individual
You do realize that your two paragraphs are in direct conflict with each other? How can corruption be "well hidden" if the world is as full of blabber mouths as you believe?
larkimm wrote:
Understanding what I do about the arrangements within the IAAF, its clear that it was entirely possible for a Vice President to be unaware of the corrupt dealings of the President. Not only possible, highly likely actually. Corruption tends to be well hidden.
Given what we know about the IAAF today, I personally can sleep easy believing that if there was a single official, laboratory technician, disgruntled former employee etc etc within the IAAF that had information that Paula (or Coe, or any other high profile athlete) doped the news of that would have tumbled out already.
Imagine finishing over 3 miles behind your national record but still being good enough to win your national champs and be selected to go to the Olympics. Happened in London, and the new champion takes advice from the record holder.... Amazing stuff!
"BBC Hardtalk
Former president, World Anti-Doping Agency - Dick Pound
Stephen Sackur speaks to Dick Pound, president of the World Anti-Doping Agency from 1999 to 2007 and veteran anti-doping campaigner"
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p03rcd8p
Haven't been following this thread for a while so I don't know if this has been posted but it's a fairly hard hitting must listen too for you regular PR thread contributors. DP is very protective of SC.
Can you please explain to me how can both be true? Again.
Purple Brain wrote:
You do realize that your two paragraphs are in direct conflict with each other? How can corruption be "well hidden" if the world is as full of blabber mouths as you believe?
larkimm wrote:Understanding what I do about the arrangements within the IAAF, its clear that it was entirely possible for a Vice President to be unaware of the corrupt dealings of the President. Not only possible, highly likely actually. Corruption tends to be well hidden.
Given what we know about the IAAF today, I personally can sleep easy believing that if there was a single official, laboratory technician, disgruntled former employee etc etc within the IAAF that had information that Paula (or Coe, or any other high profile athlete) doped the news of that would have tumbled out already.
Boaty McBoatface wrote:
The watchband on my old Timex broke so I replaced it with an ostrich leather strap. The ostrich leather MADE MY WATCH RUN FASTER.
Previously I was running 6 x 800 in 2:50-52 (please excuse my slowness, I don't drink beet juice). But now my watch says I run them in 2:30-32.
THIS OSTRICH STUFF IS AMAZING!!!!
Wait till you try ostrich blood transfusions for "elite" half-human half-ostrich chimeras with vanishing ostrich.
Thanks. Stephen Sackur is a really good interviewer. I can see why they call it Hardtalk.
Fred. You noticed the TUE for cheating masters part and the connection to the national team from the Netherlands here at 7,000 ft. that I accidentally "ran into" last week.Well done.Also I have been away from the thread and saw that rekrunner has posted another long response to someone. I am not allowed to read his posts under orders from my psychiatrist. I am also not allowed to see any long discussions with long words that begin with the letter h.Maybe you could read his post and get back to me with a summary so I can keep up with the thread.Also I have a new plan for Kenenisa Bekele and Genzebe Dibaba to have children together, have the children raised at altitude doing "elite" high level aerobic base training from age 2 to age 18, at which point Renato Canova will then become their coach for "specific" marathon training...which will then lead to the first person on planet earth to run a sub 2:00 marathon.What do you think of my new "sub 2:00" plan?
fred wrote:
Wow, what a coincidence, you living at 7,000 feet and all.