I just wanted to say thanks for posting this the WADA report was really helpful in my Doping/Steroid use lit review
I just wanted to say thanks for posting this the WADA report was really helpful in my Doping/Steroid use lit review
Is there a difference in how many of the AAF become convictions.Too boost WADA figs they inc asthma AAF that latter become explained by TUE's etc.
Lets see the postive figs and strip away WADA bullshit PR and associated pleas for more money.
birmingham wrote:
Is there a difference in how many of the AAF become convictions.Too boost WADA figs they inc asthma AAF that latter become explained by TUE's etc.
Lets see the postive figs and strip away WADA bullshit PR and associated pleas for more money.
In theory each test is suppose to be blind (I say "in theory" becuase if you have been watching the Landis case, it's possible that his test was not blind).
Since the tests are blind, the lab does not know if a TUE (Theraputic Use Exemption) has been filed. So every TUE should come up as a AAF.
For instance, when Landis' a-sample was leaked tot he press, it was also leaked that the 2006 Tour had 13 AAFs. 12 of them were "explained" by a TUE. The 13th was Landis.
This means that the 2006 cycling stats will show at least 13 AAFs.