How did Marion Jones Pass the drug tests after winning in the Olympics?

never heard of undetectable PEDs? you gotta know what you're looking for to test for it.

threadpicker wrote:

Dont they test the medal winners?

They all have doctors that allow them to escape tests because all elites are on drugs. All elites are on drugs. All elites are on drugs. Have I mentioned that all elites are on drugs yet?

Please wind me up and I will repeat it again and again.

An absence of a positive test does not equal innocent. There are a slew of athletes from the early 80's that hide behind the NEVER TESTED POSITIVE argument. People in the know KNOW.

"slough", not "slew"

threadpicker wrote:

Dont they test the medal winners?

Yes they do! And they tested me after all of my WRs, too!

Jones' tests by USDA ONLY not those done underWADA/IAAF

00-2

01-2

02-4

03-3

04-6

05-2

06-3

All reported as negative.

This makes me wonder if Lagat's B sample was paid through by nike ...

...and how a clean human could run a 3:43 mile ...

speller wrote:

"slough", not "slew"

No, this is incorrect. The correct spelling for "a large number, crowd, or amount; a lot" is indeed "slew" (or sometimes "slue," but never "slough").

picking nits wrote:

speller wrote:

"slough", not "slew"

No, this is incorrect. The correct spelling for "a large number, crowd, or amount; a lot" is indeed "slew" (or sometimes "slue," but never "slough").

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/slew

speller obviously sloughed off his English homework the day that difference was covered in class.

threadpicker wrote:

Dont they test the medal winners?

THG was designed to break up under normal testing procedures.

hehateme wrote:

This makes me wonder if Lagat's B sample was paid through by nike ...

...and how a clean human could run a 3:43 mile ...

Stupid, stupid, stupid....

Why would ANYONE have an interest in covering a Kenyan, and yet they let the Olympic 100m champion get nailed???

'80s, not 80's.

cry about the heat wrote:

An absence of a positive test does not equal innocent. There are a slew of athletes from the early 80's that hide behind the NEVER TESTED POSITIVE argument. People in the know KNOW.

There is a difference between Sloughed and Slough as well....

I am pretty sure there is some synthetic derivative of EPO already on the market which is being used. I don't trust any of the super elites, not one of them.

Marathon Debut wrote:

I am pretty sure there is some synthetic derivative of EPO already on the market which is being used. I don't trust any of the super elites, not one of them.

They're all synthetic. It'd be possible to design one that passed the current testing, theoretically, but doing so and making sure it still functioned might be problematic.

"...they let the Olympic 100m champion get nailed???"

They LET her get nailed??? When did that happen? She never

officially failed a test. When her A-sample was positive, the B-sample could not corroborate it. I don't know of any 'cover-up', but I disagree with this part of your post. :)

Marathon Debut wrote:

I am pretty sure there is some synthetic derivative of EPO already on the market which is being used. I don't trust any of the super elites, not one of them.

I'm with ya on that. When you have a Tour De France and a WC without anyone testing positive it doesn't mean that everyone is clean, it means they've moved on to another drug. Sad but true, I don't even belive the recent marathon record is clean.

Methuselah wrote:

"...they let the Olympic 100m champion get nailed???"

They LET her get nailed??? When did that happen? She never

officially failed a test. When her A-sample was positive, the B-sample could not corroborate it. I don't know of any 'cover-up', but I disagree with this part of your post. :)

Gatlin.

Marathon Debut wrote:

I am pretty sure there is some synthetic derivative of EPO already on the market which is being used. I don't trust any of the super elites, not one of them.

Which super elite(s) told you? Who did you talk to?

Or is it just envy and frustration?