aduck2022 wrote:
track is so filthy and rotten at moment .
and all largely stems from agents in britain .
bunch of fakers and actors protecting their legacy .
time might be up and will never get to see just how filthy it has become along with other sports
like european soccer and teams like liverpool etc doped to gills on the speed peptide .
need to protect their illusion and cash cow in football never mind track .
bunch of rats and traitors .
What do you mean by "time might be up"?
Only when you move the goalposts. No one ever says "never a doping violation" -- this would be correct. They always say "never failed a test", or "never tested positive" -- these are false statements, as Lance tested postive, or failed a test, at least ten times. For the definitive response, read the CIRC report. The UCI CIRC debunked the 1999 handling of the backdated prescriptions, and the independence of the Emile Vrijman report (not Vrijman's fault).
Dodgy Bio PP wrote:
(False) Conclusion: Rekrunner's myths of Armstrong testing positive in 1999 and 2004 = debunked.
Given your repeated demonstrations of depth and breadth of knowledge of a wide range of topics, what do you think about the aforementioned studies, and what do you think about the SSC figures found in Table 6? I'd really appreciate a first hand demonstration of an argument so I know what it looks like in the future. Thanks in advance.
Armstronglivs wrote:
Rekrunner, it would be really helpful if you could distinguish between an argument and a shower of pigeon sh*t.
rekrunner wrote:
Only when you move the goalposts.
No one ever says "never a doping violation" -- this would be correct.
They always say "never failed a test", or "never tested positive" -- these are false statements, as Lance tested postive, or failed a test, at least ten times.
Straw-clutching semantics type of argument- most people in the general public will understand a "failed test" or "failed drugs test" to mean a finding that will get you a ban - i.e. a doping violation. This never happened to Armstrong when he was competing.
Conclusion: Rekrunner myth on Armstrong's testing positive amounting to doping violations remains debunked.
Next Rekrunner myth for scrutiny please (EPO doesn't work on elites/Kenyans ?) ...
Dodgy Bio PP wrote:
rekrunner wrote:
Only when you move the goalposts.
No one ever says "never a doping violation" -- this would be correct.
They always say "never failed a test", or "never tested positive" -- these are false statements, as Lance tested postive, or failed a test, at least ten times.
Straw-clutching semantics type of argument- most people in the general public will understand a "failed test" or "failed drugs test" to mean a finding that will get you a ban - i.e. a doping violation. This never happened to Armstrong when he was competing.
Conclusion: Rekrunner myth on Armstrong's testing positive amounting to doping violations remains debunked.
Next Rekrunner myth for scrutiny please (EPO doesn't work on elites/Kenyans ?) ...
How can the ignorance of the general public be the applicable standard?
I would appreciate a good showing of how EPO works on elites.
Dodgy Bio PP wrote:
You have a lot of "if's" in your argument. However, Lance never had a positive test - by positive test we should clarify this as a "doping violation". Lance did not have a doping violation in 1999 for corticosteroids because he had a TUE which was accepted by the UCI in the 1999 Tour. Team Sky also had TUEs for corticosteroids (Bradley Wiggins) in the 2012 Tour so they did not have any doping violations for corticosteroids in the 2012 Tour - we have no way of knowing behind the scenes how the TUEs for team Sky were accepted by the UCI.
He did not have a TUE in 1999 because TUEs did not come into existence until 2004. His team produced a back dated prescription for a cream for saddle sores which just happened to contain the corticosteroid. The team apologized profusely for their error in prescribing the wrong cream and the UCI accepted the excuse. They labeled it as unintentional and let him off the hook.
In 2001 he tested positive for EPO. After meeting with the officials the result was classified as highly suspicious rather than positive and Armstrong subsequently made a $125,000 contribution towards drug testing. If he didn't test positive why did he make the donation?
End of thread.