You know nothing of their goals; they didn't state them and your views on that are mere assumptions. I recorded the documentary and later made notes of what it said. Apart from claiming the black market in drugs amounted to a billion Euros - which was based on estimates provided by WADA and others it referred to who were involved in anti-doping - the programme said there are believed to be at least a hundred products available on the black market for which there are currently no tests. The programme also gave a breakdown on which sports and which countries were amongst the worst doping offenders. Running sports were up there, as well as many of the countries often discussed in these boards. Clearly, you didn't see it. But it would have made no difference to a mind closed like yours.
Maybe you watched a different documentary -- do you have the name of the one you recorded and took notes? Because when I watched "The Endless Chase Pt. 1" they did not say "a billion Euros", nor that it was "provided by WADA and others it referred to who were involved in anti-doping". They did not say how they formed that estimate, and they did not say which products they considered "doping", and how much of that estimate covers athletes competing in sport. They did interview athletes and officials, and sports editors, but did not attribute that estimate to anyone interviewed. While they did interview a banned French shotputter, they also talked about non-Olympic sports like soccer, and baseball.
What is so stupid is that we had this dicussion just six weeks ago, where all these questions you are floundering with now were already answered, and rather than doing a quick search, you are still "winging it", playing all of your same games of "I know you are but what am I", and feebly attempting to flip the burden of disproving your claims you cannot prove, and for frosting on the cake, getting the Jamaican whistleblower's name wrong, again.
These are not isolated events, but a consistent pattern of not reading what is written, or not comprehending it when you do. How can I rely on your recollection of notes with all this plain evidence that you can't even repeat what you just read accurately? When a headline explicitly says "300 million per year" you argue that it is really "80 million" and pretend I'm the moron -- like the iron pot calling the stainless steel kettle black.
It is clear you did not see the documentary I saw.
It was I who provided a 350 million dollar annual figure for anti-doping, whereas you offered 300 million or so by the IOC over 4 years. That is around 80 million each year. In either case, a long way from a billion, which was claimed by your lap dancer, liar soorer.
Maybe you watched a different documentary -- do you have the name of the one you recorded and took notes? Because when I watched "The Endless Chase Pt. 1" they did not say "a billion Euros", nor that it was "provided by WADA and others it referred to who were involved in anti-doping". They did not say how they formed that estimate, and they did not say which products they considered "doping", and how much of that estimate covers athletes competing in sport. They did interview athletes and officials, and sports editors, but did not attribute that estimate to anyone interviewed. While they did interview a banned French shotputter, they also talked about non-Olympic sports like soccer, and baseball.
What is so stupid is that we had this dicussion just six weeks ago, where all these questions you are floundering with now were already answered, and rather than doing a quick search, you are still "winging it", playing all of your same games of "I know you are but what am I", and feebly attempting to flip the burden of disproving your claims you cannot prove, and for frosting on the cake, getting the Jamaican whistleblower's name wrong, again.
These are not isolated events, but a consistent pattern of not reading what is written, or not comprehending it when you do. How can I rely on your recollection of notes with all this plain evidence that you can't even repeat what you just read accurately? When a headline explicitly says "300 million per year" you argue that it is really "80 million" and pretend I'm the moron -- like the iron pot calling the stainless steel kettle black.
It is clear you did not see the documentary I saw.
It was I who provided a 350 million dollar annual figure for anti-doping, whereas you offered 300 million or so by the IOC over 4 years. That is around 80 million each year. In either case, a long way from a billion, which was claimed by your lap dancer, liar soorer.
The bs is that they didn't accept he was trying to protect his athletes from foul play. He was trying to find ways to dope his athletes so they could get away with it. For that he earned a 4 year ban.
It is clear you did not see the documentary I saw.
It was I who provided a 350 million dollar annual figure for anti-doping, whereas you offered 300 million or so by the IOC over 4 years. That is around 80 million each year. In either case, a long way from a billion, which was claimed by your lap dancer, liar soorer.
Thousands of athletes, coaches and trainers in every sport have been convinced of the efficacy of doping through their own experiences and the results they have achieved. It has been so for decades. But you - who have never doped let alone been an elite sportsman - know better than all of them. Without experience of what you deny, you are the very definition of self delusion. You cannot bear to believe your heroes are fake.
You just got done telling us they take it without waiting for statistical confirmation.
They weren't caught. That isn't the same as saying they weren't doping. Yet their coach was trying to find ways to dope his athletes and so incurred a 4 year ban. If that is a clean operation I have some real estate on the moon that could interest you.
It is the same as saying any allegation that any NOP athletes doped was "rejected" (your word) due to a failure to meet the required burden.
Formally - yes. Her full name but not what she says is what is important here? Her conclusions mean nothing to you?
Even informally.
Are these "conclusions"? They look like sweeping generalizations which really do mean very little to me. How does it apply to distance running? How would she know? Has she ever doped, or let alone been, an elite sportswoman?
It is clear you did not see the documentary I saw.
It was I who provided a 350 million dollar annual figure for anti-doping, whereas you offered 300 million or so by the IOC over 4 years. That is around 80 million each year. In either case, a long way from a billion, which was claimed by your lap dancer, liar soorer.
I think it is more likely we saw the same documentary, and you simply got the details wrong.
As evidence once again of your tendency to blur details, the article I offered said $1.2 billion over 4 years, or 300 million each year. Your 80 million each year calculation is debunked by the headline.
Guilty. That was quite clear here on the first few pages, but then the trolling started again.
Just this week the doper defenders called Tucker confused and irrelevant. I kid you not. Here in this thread called "Sports Scientist Ross Tucker breaks downs the Shelby Houlihan case for us"!
Oh, and of course letsrun wrote this about Tucker (link on the first page of this thread):
Final Verdict Q: You’ve spent the last month studying this case in-depth. Gut feeling: is Houlihan innocent or guilty? With confidence, I’d say “not innocent on the basis of pork burrito ingestion.” Which of course, in doping cases, means guilty. There is much unknowable in between, but the contaminated food explanation doesn’t stand up to basically any level of scrutiny.
Guilty. That was quite clear here on the first few pages, but then the trolling started again.
Just this week the doper defenders called Tucker confused and irrelevant. I kid you not. Here in this thread called "Sports Scientist Ross Tucker breaks downs the Shelby Houlihan case for us"!
Oh, and of course letsrun wrote this about Tucker (link on the first page of this thread):
Final Verdict Q: You’ve spent the last month studying this case in-depth. Gut feeling: is Houlihan innocent or guilty? With confidence, I’d say “not innocent on the basis of pork burrito ingestion.” Which of course, in doping cases, means guilty. There is much unknowable in between, but the contaminated food explanation doesn’t stand up to basically any level of scrutiny.
Much of the discussion centers around whether a guilty verdict from CAS and deliberate doping are the same question, or two different questions. On the question of deliberate doping, after reviewing the CAS report, here is what Ross had to say:
... only one (or maybe a few) people truly know if it was deliberate doping or not. As for what happened, that is indeed the question. I genuinely don’t know.
This excludes the AIU, their experts, and the CAS. He then describes that if Houlihan were truly innocent, the kind of steps she would have to go through to "prove" it, hiring private investigators, testing hundreds of pork samples, and ultimately spending six-figures. "I can’t stress enough how much Houlihan would need to show." And even then he compares it to "the proverbial needle in a haystack".
I think he misses the point that all of that investigation and testing would have had to be done earlier in December, one month before she was notified, when normal conditions and supplies were perturbed due to the pandemic, invalidating some of Prof. McGlone's assumptions.
It is clear you did not see the documentary I saw.
It was I who provided a 350 million dollar annual figure for anti-doping, whereas you offered 300 million or so by the IOC over 4 years. That is around 80 million each year. In either case, a long way from a billion, which was claimed by your lap dancer, liar soorer.
Wada and USADA alone are 46m.
They are among the primary anti-doping orgs. No one else would match them. 46m is 954m from a billion. There is no billion. Except in your fantasies.
Formally - yes. Her full name but not what she says is what is important here? Her conclusions mean nothing to you?
Even informally.
Are these "conclusions"? They look like sweeping generalizations which really do mean very little to me. How does it apply to distance running? How would she know? Has she ever doped, or let alone been, an elite sportswoman?
She was an official in Jamaican sport who investigated the issue of testing and doping. She is quoted as a significant source on the subject of sports doping. Even you have heard of her. You, on the other hand, are merely an anonymous troll on a message board.
The bs is that they didn't accept he was trying to protect his athletes from foul play. He was trying to find ways to dope his athletes so they could get away with it. For that he earned a 4 year ban.
Sorry, that is not what the AAA Panel said.
He didn't get a 4 year ban for nobly trying to protect his athletes from sabotage. He didn't break the doping rules for fun, either. He was doing it for his athletes.
It is clear you did not see the documentary I saw.
It was I who provided a 350 million dollar annual figure for anti-doping, whereas you offered 300 million or so by the IOC over 4 years. That is around 80 million each year. In either case, a long way from a billion, which was claimed by your lap dancer, liar soorer.
I think it is more likely we saw the same documentary, and you simply got the details wrong.
As evidence once again of your tendency to blur details, the article I offered said $1.2 billion over 4 years, or 300 million each year. Your 80 million each year calculation is debunked by the headline.
The total figure for anti-doping is an estimated 350million annually. Whatever you argue, it is nowhere near a billion or are you trying to find that invisible expenditure?
No, it isn't. Everyone except you and liar soorer knows why she has been banned for 4 years. No one else - including her - is asking why she has been banned.
He didn't get a 4 year ban for nobly trying to protect his athletes from sabotage. He didn't break the doping rules for fun, either. He was doing it for his athletes.
I am just happy that that sexual abuser and cheat finally got his well-deserved lifetime ban, no matter how hard fans here tried to argue that he didn't commit any sexual misconduct despite his ban being for egregious sexual misconduct.
As for his 4-year ban, CAS condemned him quite clearly:
It is not appropriate, in the Panel’s view, particularly for a coach of Mr. Salazar’s standing and experience, to fail to have knowledge of, or at least to check, so significant a matter as the definition of Athlete to determine whether it applied to Mr. Magness before submitting him to the administration of a Prohibited Method.
...
Mr. Salazar’s conduct in relation to his Tampering ADRV demonstrated an intentional and orchestrated scheme to mislead USADA, which was completely inconsistent with his obligations as a coach and Athlete Support Personnel. Such conduct requires strong condemnation and cannot be tolerated in the fight against doping.
...
Mr. Alberto Salazar committed the following anti-doping rule violations: a. Possession (2009 WADC Article 2.6) of testosterone in furtherance of the Testosterone Experiment; b. Complicity (2009 WADC Article 2.8) in Dr. Jeffrey Brown’s Administration of a Prohibited Method to Mr. Steve Magness; c. Tampering (2009 WADC Article 2.5) with the Doping Control Process with respect to the issue of L-carnitine infusions/syringes.
Unfortunately Salazar got lucky that
a) USADA acted so slowly, not charging him with a or b before charging him with b or c - otherwise that would have been a much longer ban;
b) USADA failed to discover any of his sexual misconduct - otherwise that creep would have been stopped much earlier.
No, it isn't. Everyone except you and liar soorer knows why she has been banned for 4 years. No one else - including her - is asking why she has been banned.
It is a good question as some like you have never read the rules and think she is guilty of being a cheat.
I think it is more likely we saw the same documentary, and you simply got the details wrong.
As evidence once again of your tendency to blur details, the article I offered said $1.2 billion over 4 years, or 300 million each year. Your 80 million each year calculation is debunked by the headline.
The total figure for anti-doping is an estimated 350million annually. Whatever you argue, it is nowhere near a billion or are you trying to find that invisible expenditure?
You added "annually" after the fact, altering the goalposts.