Are any pros actually clean?

justanothercuriousdude wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

You present the problem with the sport in a nutshell: there are athletes at the top you think might be clean and athletes you think aren't. That is a sport in which it is just as likely a top athlete is doping than they are not. It means scepticism is the most rational take for what we are seeing.

I very much agree in your last sentence here. But the problem is your decision to use this scepticism only against arguments that suggest athletes are clean, and not against those who (so over confident) claims the opposite (most top athletes being dirty).

An example: I have just reread a two years old thread about Shelby Houlihan where you repeatedly (only) say that she is a convicted doper and therefore guilty, end of story. And of course you could be right, because even sceptics might assume that most convicts are guilty. But as an intelligent poster you know as well as I that your argument is flawed, and lacks necessary scepticism. Because (as you too know) there are convicts that later are proven innocent, both in doping cases (recent example: Peter Bol, old example: Norwegian Olympic champ Trine Solberg Hattestad) and in the judicial system (f.ex convicted murderers in almost every countries).

This doesn’t mean that you are wrong and I am right then it comes to our estimation of doping prevalence. My point is only that you (sometimes, not always) for some reasons won’t use your scepticism both ways.

So maybe you would claim that I (like you) are likewise biased in my scepticism. If so I have to defend my self in another post…

Armstronglivs wrote:

justanothercuriousdude wrote:

I very much agree in your last sentence here. But the problem is your decision to use this scepticism only against arguments that suggest athletes are clean, and not against those who (so over confident) claims the opposite (most top athletes being dirty).

An example: I have just reread a two years old thread about Shelby Houlihan where you repeatedly (only) say that she is a convicted doper and therefore guilty, end of story. And of course you could be right, because even sceptics might assume that most convicts are guilty. But as an intelligent poster you know as well as I that your argument is flawed, and lacks necessary scepticism. Because (as you too know) there are convicts that later are proven innocent, both in doping cases (recent example: Peter Bol, old example: Norwegian Olympic champ Trine Solberg Hattestad) and in the judicial system (f.ex convicted murderers in almost every countries).

This doesn’t mean that you are wrong and I am right then it comes to our estimation of doping prevalence. My point is only that you (sometimes, not always) for some reasons won’t use your scepticism both ways.

So maybe you would claim that I (like you) are likewise biased in my scepticism. If so I have to defend my self in another post…

Scepticism about whether we are seeing a clean sport is a quite different issue from scepticism of a specific court finding that an athlete is guilty of a doping violation. There are no grounds on the basis of the facts in the case you refer to to maintain the latter - the chances of Houlihan not doping were expertly assessed as being "near zero" - while the estimated prevalence of doping in the sport makes scepticism about whether it is clean at the top the only rational response. The facts - as we know them - support that view whereas they don't support scepticism that Houlihan doped.

Yes - courts can sometimes get it wrong but they don't generally do so and we need confirmed facts to show that is so in any individual case.

I don't generally debate with those who say "everybody is doping", even though I don't agree with that point of view, because I am concerned more at the attempts to deny or excuse doping in a sport in which it is a widespread and serious problem.

justanothercuriousdude wrote:

I don’t say Shelby is innocent or guilty. I just claim that this is a case that is clouded by some uncertainty, and that some of this doubt could’ve been cleared away, if important questions had been answered. The main question is this: The expert witness nr 2, professor Strahm, possed that 7.0 +/- is to low to suggest oral nandrolone in pill form, and also points out (if I have understood correctly) that such low doses won’t give any meaning performance wise, and also (that pills ) will damage the athletes inner organs more than an injection (that all experts in the case rule out being used here). So how can Shelby have digested the nandrolone if it doesn’t come from pigs / boar!? And why don’t the two WA expert witnesses, that told us zero chance of contaminated boar, even try to answer Shelby’s renown expert (former Wada-employee)? Makes me suspicious…

VFB wrote:

justanothercuriousdude wrote:

I don’t say Shelby is innocent or guilty. I just claim that this is a case that is clouded by some uncertainty, and that some of this doubt could’ve been cleared away, if important questions had been answered. The main question is this: The expert witness nr 2, professor Strahm, possed that 7.0 +/- is to low to suggest oral nandrolone in pill form, and also points out (if I have understood correctly) that such low doses won’t give any meaning performance wise, and also (that pills ) will damage the athletes inner organs more than an injection (that all experts in the case rule out being used here). So how can Shelby have digested the nandrolone if it doesn’t come from pigs / boar!? And why don’t the two WA expert witnesses, that told us zero chance of contaminated boar, even try to answer Shelby’s renown expert (former Wada-employee)? Makes me suspicious…

What a strange paragraph. Not even rekrunner/twoggle mentioned that iirc.

Can you quote Strahm and point out the source of this weird statement that "7.0 +/- is to low to suggest oral nandrolone in pill form" etc.? It would really be strange, because a) it doesn't have to be in pill form; b) no one knows the concentration of nandrolone in that hypothetical unspecified pill; c) it could have been 1/4 of a pill; d) it could have been part of a cream; e) the whole statement is nonsense because no one knows when the nandrolone was taken - it could have been a full 100 mg nor‐Andro pill 3 days earlier or a 1/4 of 50 mg 10 hours earlier (random examples).

Finally it is irrelevant to the case, because the athlete needs to show that it was not intentional, not the AIU that it was intentional (and how and when it was taken etc). So even if Strahm posed that question, there was no point in answering it.

I call bull.

justanothercuriousdude wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

Scepticism about whether we are seeing a clean sport is a quite different issue from scepticism of a specific court finding that an athlete is guilty of a doping violation. There are no grounds on the basis of the facts in the case you refer to to maintain the latter - the chances of Houlihan not doping were expertly assessed as being "near zero" - while the estimated prevalence of doping in the sport makes scepticism about whether it is clean at the top the only rational response. The facts - as we know them - support that view whereas they don't support scepticism that Houlihan doped.

Yes - courts can sometimes get it wrong but they don't generally do so and we need confirmed facts to show that is so in any individual case.

I don't generally debate with those who say "everybody is doping", even though I don't agree with that point of view, because I am concerned more at the attempts to deny or excuse doping in a sport in which it is a widespread and serious problem.

What you are saying in paragraph 2 and 3 are all good in my opinion. And i also like that you have changed your “guilty because convicted” to guilty because “the chances of Houlian not doping were expertly assessed as being near zero” (a good enough memory citation from the CAS ruling)…

But the problem is that you pose this as a clear cut case, while it isn’t at all. SH had 6.9 and 7.8 ng/ ml in her urine, whereas f.ex C. J Hunter had 2000 ng/ml and also admitted his doping. The second case is very clear cut, the first is not!

I don’t say Shelby is innocent or guilty. I just claim that this is a case that is clouded by some uncertainty, and that some of this doubt could’ve been cleared away, if important questions had been answered. The main question is this: The expert witness nr 2, professor Strahm, possed that 7.0 +/- is to low to suggest oral nandrolone in pill form, and also points out (if I have understood correctly) that such low doses won’t give any meaning performance wise, and also (that pills ) will damage the athletes inner organs more than an injection (that all experts in the case rule out being used here). So how can Shelby have digested the nandrolone if it doesn’t come from pigs / boar!? And why don’t the two WA expert witnesses, that told us zero chance of contaminated boar, even try to answer Shelby’s renown expert (former Wada-employee)? Makes me suspicious…

I choose to be sceptical both ways: When posters on my side (“doping apologists”) claim that Nordås or Jakob I. cannot be doped because of the Norwegian culture, or the transparency around the making of the tv series “Team Ingebrigtsen” I laugh out loud, because Norwegians have been popped before regardless of culture or transparency, and will be again (at least one Norwegian cyclist has admitted to blood doping without being caught). But for the sake of a balanced discussion we need the same criticism when the other side (your) “proves” doping only based on progression or times…

VFB wrote:

Thank you for the link but ..... he never ever said anything like "7.0 +/- is to low to suggest oral nandrolone in pill form" so obviously no one could respond to that. He also didn't say it couldn't have been a pill. In fact, he never mentions "pill".

Or are you referring to "Other routes of administration (oral, sublingual, transdermal) lead to very fast excretion and very high concentrations in urine;"? As explained, and as you can see for example in Huelseman's work in their time dependent plots, the measured concentration depends on the timing of the doping versus the testing.

Point 112: The Respondent relies on expert scientific evidence from Dr Emmanuel Strahm,
Operational Leader, Institut de Chimie Clinique, Lausanne, Switzerland.

Point 113: The testimony of Dr Strahm (including the two reports submitted in the course of the adjudication of this matter, dated 11 March 2021 and 10 May 2021) on this point can be
summarized as follows:
- The Athlete’s urine test performed on 15 December 2020 at 6:15am was reported to
contain 19-NA estimated concentrations of 6.9 and 7.8 ng/mL in the A- and B-Samples,
respectively. According to Dr Strahm, these concentrations are consistent with values
reported around 10 hours after ingestion of boar meat or offal. The ratio between the
two main metabolites of nandrolone, 19-NA and 19-NE, cannot discriminate between
exogenous and endogenous origin of nandrolone. 19-NA on 19-NE ratios are found to
be higher after exogenous nandrolone consumption (7±7) than boar consumption (4±3)
The ratios between the two main metabolites of nandrolone (19-NA and 19-NE) under
their glucuroconjugated forms were 4.5 and 3.9 in the Athlete’s A- and B-Samples,
respectively. Dr Strahm further took into account that:
· The Athlete underwent doping control tests also on 22 November 2020 and 23
January 2021, and the tests were negative;
· It is known that nandrolone abuse by injection could be evidenced up to nine
months after a single dose. Thus, it would have been detected on 23 January
2021 and can be rejected as a possible source of administration;
· Other routes of administration (oral, sublingual, transdermal) lead to very fast
excretion and very high concentrations in urine;
· Concentrations in the range found in the Athlete’s sample are definitely
compatible with boar meat consumption and do not point to a 19-norsteroid
abuse; and
· Considering WADA’s TD2019NA, this conclusion is consistent with an
endogenous origin of the 19-NA.

rekrunner wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

You really have no idea how to use the English language. "Discounting" does not mean that something cannot be "counted" in the sense of being enumerated. It simply means removed from further consideration as relevant. That doping cannot be definitively enumerated does not mean it does not exist or even that it isn't significant - it is. It therefore cannot be discounted, even though it cannot be "counted". You need to stick to your bean-counting.

I do lack your creative and selective use of the English language. Discount means a reduction of a normal or accepted value, like a selling things at reduced prices. I was accused of discounting "widespread doping", and "its effect on modern performances". I assumed I was accused of reducing "likely more than 44%" to values like (Howman's) 10%, or reducing values like "up to 3%" to values like 0.3%, or 0%, or negative (athletes got slower).

Contrary to the first accusation, I never discounted "widespread doping" in any sense. I always concede doping is spread wide and far and deep and up to the top -- almost as far and wide and deep as the belief in doping. The jury is still out how "widespread" translates to a numerical prevalence as a percentage.

As to "its effect on modern performances", how is it even possible to discount any alleged effect if no one has reliably observed and reported it (except maybe steroids for women in events requiring superior muscular strength)? Like you said elsewhere, everyone is just guessing.

rekrunner wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

I can count on you not to follow an argument. I am saying the opposite of what you have just said. The problem is not the ignorance of fans, as you claim, but the presence of doping, which is what the commenter above indicated by his perception of athletes he was sure were doping, that he knew personally. He spoke as one who purported to have knowledge of top athletes, which would make him informed and not ignorant. The estimates by experts of doping prevalence in the sport - as indicated also in athlete surveys - would support what he says and what I have inferred. The ignorance here is all yours. It always is.

You said "the problem with the sport in a nutshell" was "there are athletes at the top you think might be clean and athletes you think aren't". This makes me think you are talking from the point of view of one who doesn't know any better, about that they "think might be", rather than someone who is informed and not ignorant.

While in a generic sweeping sense "doping" is undeniably a widespread problem in "sport", it is only made worse by ignorant speculation, and stretched logic and rationalizations, about what the ignorant "think might be".

justanothercuriousdude wrote:

VFB wrote:

Thank you for the link but ..... he never ever said anything like "7.0 +/- is to low to suggest oral nandrolone in pill form" so obviously no one could respond to that. He also didn't say it couldn't have been a pill. In fact, he never mentions "pill".

Or are you referring to "Other routes of administration (oral, sublingual, transdermal) lead to very fast excretion and very high concentrations in urine;"? As explained, and as you can see for example in Huelseman's work in their time dependent plots, the measured concentration depends on the timing of the doping versus the testing.

Point 112: The Respondent relies on expert scientific evidence from Dr Emmanuel Strahm,
Operational Leader, Institut de Chimie Clinique, Lausanne, Switzerland.

Point 113: The testimony of Dr Strahm (including the two reports submitted in the course of the adjudication of this matter, dated 11 March 2021 and 10 May 2021) on this point can be
summarized as follows:
- The Athlete’s urine test performed on 15 December 2020 at 6:15am was reported to
contain 19-NA estimated concentrations of 6.9 and 7.8 ng/mL in the A- and B-Samples,
respectively. According to Dr Strahm, these concentrations are consistent with values
reported around 10 hours after ingestion of boar meat or offal. The ratio between the
two main metabolites of nandrolone, 19-NA and 19-NE, cannot discriminate between
exogenous and endogenous origin of nandrolone. 19-NA on 19-NE ratios are found to
be higher after exogenous nandrolone consumption (7±7) than boar consumption (4±3)
The ratios between the two main metabolites of nandrolone (19-NA and 19-NE) under
their glucuroconjugated forms were 4.5 and 3.9 in the Athlete’s A- and B-Samples,
respectively. Dr Strahm further took into account that:
· The Athlete underwent doping control tests also on 22 November 2020 and 23
January 2021, and the tests were negative;
· It is known that nandrolone abuse by injection could be evidenced up to nine
months after a single dose. Thus, it would have been detected on 23 January
2021 and can be rejected as a possible source of administration;
· Other routes of administration (oral, sublingual, transdermal) lead to very fast
excretion and very high concentrations in urine;
· Concentrations in the range found in the Athlete’s sample are definitely
compatible with boar meat consumption and do not point to a 19-norsteroid
abuse; and
· Considering WADA’s TD2019NA, this conclusion is consistent with an
endogenous origin of the 19-NA.

You are correct in your pointing out that professor Strahm doesn’t use the word “pill” (at least not in the summary of his testimony, that this CAS writing is restricted to). But he uses the word “oral”, and refers also to his opponent, professor Ayotte, who also uses the word “oral”, f.ex when she talks about nandrolone that could be purchased via Amazon. -The word “pill” isn’t important here; I only came to use it because the sport scientist Ross Tucker used it in his interpretation of Strahm and Ayotte…

You are (of course) also totally correct in what you are saying about timeline and dosage for an oral nandrolone (f.ex a pill), and how it will effect test results. This is pure logic. And the professors Strahm and Jahren are of course well aware of that. So you have to read why that doesn’t cloud their points (marks 117-119).

The 7.0 +/- is my interpretation of professor Strahm’s numbers, that you have cited correctly in your answer.

Lastly you mentioned Huelseman and his timeline and so forth, but both Strahm and Jahren has given their opinions here -not contested by any (apart from their -the other experts- refusal of the likelihood of uncastrated boars in the food supply, that the whole disagreement seems to come down to).

Some final words why I don’t think this CAS ruling is a clear cut case: We (they) have to choose between some possible but very unlikely alternatives, but one of them has to be the correct (factual) one.

1. Tampering / spiking of Shelby’s food. Possible, but very unlikely.

2. Doping: Possible, but maybe very unlikely. -SH was tested 15 times in recent time prior to the positive test. That means that she would have taken a huge chance doping according to a method (oral nandrolone) regarded little effective on performance, and dangerous (health). She could of course been ignorant about the little effect, and speculated in a method (oral) that would dispose of the nandrolone traces quite quick. And she could have had her regular beef meal as an excuse as a reserve (not knowing that it was pig burritos she should have ordered). But unlikely in my opinion, also seen in a larger context.

3. Nandrolone as contaminate on other illegal ingested substances: Unlikely, since the tests didn’t discover any.

4. The eating of a pork burrito from uncastrated boar. Possible, but not likely, given the expert testimony about how boars are 100% prohibited from the human food chain in the USA.

My take: I would go for number 4, just because nr 1-3 seem even more unlikely, and it have to (according to the experts) be one of the four alternatives. And CAS has accepted that Houlihan ate a pork burrito ten hours before the test. One other way to choose: One concludes that it is impossible to know with good enough certainty which of the alternatives is the right one; Houlihan therefore is declared innocent…

A little more reasoning around my picking of alternative 4: Although the expert witness that declares uncastrated boars as nonexistent in the US human food chain (with almost 100% certainty) seems solid, we know that very little in the human world is 100%! We also know that uncastrated boars are killed and sold in thousands each day (in the USA) -according to The Department of Agriculture- what if someone illegally supported the food chain with uncastrated boars meant for destruction or dog food (for economic reasons)? According to professor Ayotte there are a number of other athletes with the same test profile as Houlihan -they could all be exposed to illegal boar meat -unknowingly (my words)…

Armstronglivs wrote:

They aren't guessing. Doping isn't a punt or a lottery; it is a system based on a highly-informed understanding of what drugs can do. Athletes and their teams use the drugs because they receive expert advice on the properties of the drugs and what they can enable. They don't simply stroll into a pharmacy and blindly grab anything off a shelf. (Imagine if you filled yourself full of laxatives because they, too, are "drugs". Doping isn't random - the experts on drugs know what effect they can have on the human body). Doping is an expert business. Those involved know what they are doing.

WADA gets much the same kind of information from experts they rely on, that the drugs they ban have the potential to boost performance and are being used by athletes for that purpose. Antidoping doesn't simply ban a drug because it has a fancy label and is on a pharmacy shelf (many aren't).

Your linguistic slithering around your use of "discounting" shows how disingenuous you are; you didn't use it in the sense of how you now try to justify it, as a "discount" (like a cash discount) on a given figure, but simply to maintain your oft-expressed view that doping does not enhance performance and that athletes baselessly "believe" it does.

rekrunner wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

They aren't guessing. Doping isn't a punt or a lottery; it is a system based on a highly-informed understanding of what drugs can do. Athletes and their teams use the drugs because they receive expert advice on the properties of the drugs and what they can enable. They don't simply stroll into a pharmacy and blindly grab anything off a shelf. (Imagine if you filled yourself full of laxatives because they, too, are "drugs". Doping isn't random - the experts on drugs know what effect they can have on the human body). Doping is an expert business. Those involved know what they are doing.

WADA gets much the same kind of information from experts they rely on, that the drugs they ban have the potential to boost performance and are being used by athletes for that purpose. Antidoping doesn't simply ban a drug because it has a fancy label and is on a pharmacy shelf (many aren't).

Your linguistic slithering around your use of "discounting" shows how disingenuous you are; you didn't use it in the sense of how you now try to justify it, as a "discount" (like a cash discount) on a given figure, but simply to maintain your oft-expressed view that doping does not enhance performance and that athletes baselessly "believe" it does.

These are just your guesses.

I didn't use "discount" at all in any sense -- you did, and another poster did. In all cases, I do not discount the spread of doping -- like you I'm sure doping exists worldwide, as confirmed in annual WADA reports. And I cannot discount its performance enhancing effects, by any definition, until they are reliably established.