I feel like they were probably already investigated during the Salazar investigation.
I feel like they were probably already investigated during the Salazar investigation.
Baltsu wrote:
practical questions wrote:
Hello,
I have a practical question, which is, "What resources, expertise, and ability to thoroughly investigate athletes does WADA have that surpasses what USADA has?
WADA can re-test the samples. Those samples are good for 8 years and they have done that kind of tests for example regarding the medalists in Peking 2008. So WADA can re-test all the samples of the NOP athletes that are still available.
this is problematic for a number of runners...anyone have a list of the NOP sal athletes since 2008?
Hateraid wrote:
I feel like they were probably already investigated during the Salazar investigation.
what if al sal was spiking the L-carnatine with microdose EPO and HGH and the runners thought that it was only L-carnatine? i mean him and doc brown fudge the injection numbers, why is it out of the question of him spiking the injection with the sauce and not telling the runners?
"banned i got" yoda is that you?
banned i got wrote:
Hateraid wrote:
I feel like they were probably already investigated during the Salazar investigation.
what if al sal was spiking the L-carnatine with microdose EPO and HGH and the runners thought that it was only L-carnatine? i mean him and doc brown fudge the injection numbers, why is it out of the question of him spiking the injection with the sauce and not telling the runners?
Good questions, but I'm guessing that's something we'll probably never know, but one can only hope.
Yeah just like lance Armstrong - he was exactly that, the most tested athlete in the world. Nothing with come to light until either the athletes admit it, or they can find a better way of testing them.
Yes. I fantasized what may be one possible outcome -- I guess you mean based on uninformed information. Well, actually "Armstronglivs" created that fantasy, and I just agreed it was one possible outcome. Paula didn't decide that NOP athletes were clean, but that they needed to be defended out of fairness based on a report that did not implicate any NOP athletes.
Flying Carpet Salesman wrote:
You have just created a fantasy scenario based on uniform information . The media press release would never disclose what "evidence " it has that wasn't disclosed by USADA in the case against Saladbar.
All we have is Paula Radcliffe's uniformed decision that NOP athlete's are clean . I expect Jordan H and Rupp will come out soon saying they were actually coached by Pete.
Yes I imagined what I said "may be one outcome". I don't deride the uninformed if the information is not publicly available. And i freely admit the public information is limited. "Fanatisize" -- lol. But now I'm a bit confused. What happened to "thinking out of the box"? Should I be doing creative thinking or not? What's the standard here? I thought fantasy and imagination were irreproachable -- even stronger than any facts it may contradict. Isn't fantasy the way to break free from my immutable dogma?
Armstronglivs wrote:
Without the benefit of any "extra data" you have just "imagined" the outcome of the WADA investigation - as well as the process it will follow. Well done - you have just joined the ranks of the "uninformed", whom you so regularly deride.
I like your use of "fanatisize" (instead of fantasise) as well. Intentional - or a Freudian slip? The latter is more likely. It covers your approach perfectly. Reason has long given way to immutable dogma.
Hateraid wrote:
I feel like they were probably already investigated during the Salazar investigation.
Not really.
USADA has a history of being soft on our athletes; they just wanted a scalp to pretend to be against doping.
No one wants to catch Mo or Galen, mark my words. We are watching another cover-up in the making.
not really wrote:
Hateraid wrote:
I feel like they were probably already investigated during the Salazar investigation.
Not really.
USADA has a history of being soft on our athletes; they just wanted a scalp to pretend to be against doping.
No one wants to catch Mo or Galen, mark my words. We are watching another cover-up in the making.
History has proven you correct.
So if WADA can retest samples for up to 8 years - does anyone think it was just coincidence that Kara waited until 8 years after her medal to speak up about the going ons of the NOP?
Coinkydink wrote:
So if WADA can retest samples for up to 8 years - does anyone think it was just coincidence that Kara waited until 8 years after her medal to speak up about the going ons of the NOP?
I mean Kara came out with the initial thing within the time frame so if she was really worried I’m guessing she would’ve waited a little longer? It is pretty coincidental though I suppose. She’s also been on record saying all AlSal athletes, including herself, should have the samples retested so you wouldn’t think there would be something to hide, but again the timing could be perfect, who knows. I think it would be kind of funny if they retested everything and found she was dirty along with everyone else too
It seems like I've already answered this question in at least two other threads. I'm not aware of any IAAF "most likely to dope" list, and the "most at risk of doping" list does not factor at all into any of my thinking. My views on the likelihood of any NOP athlete doping are based on the complete totality of all publicly known information, culminating in the recent addition of the findings of the AAA Panel report, except the IAAF "most at risk of doping" list.
What Say You wrote:
So, you don't think there's any doping going on with NOP athletes? (at anytime since the organization was developed). Is that because no athlete there has ever tested positive, been banned for ABP violations nor that the U.S. has ever appeared on any IAAF "most likely to dope" lists?
Isn't it 10 years now?
Coinkydink wrote:
So if WADA can retest samples for up to 8 years - does anyone think it was just coincidence that Kara waited until 8 years after her medal to speak up about the going ons of the NOP?
Coinkydink wrote:
So if WADA can retest samples for up to 8 years - does anyone think it was just coincidence that Kara waited until 8 years after her medal to speak up about the going ons of the NOP?
When she went to USADA with concerns it was less than 8 years from getting her medal, dummy.
explain exactly how they plan on they are doing this. what proof or info are they collecting? lie detector bullsh%$*?????
not really wrote:
[quote]Hateraid wrote:
No one wants to catch Mo or Galen, mark my words. We are watching another cover-up in the making.
nobody wants to catch bolt, rudisha, bekele, or kipchoge either. it's like they know if they bust these guys, casual runners and young competitors who look up to these guys will give up running which will do more overall damage to this sport. these elite athletes are lucky there is no scandal going on like salazar or armstrong.
if mo and galen are cheaters, just bust them. only UK cares about mo and nobody cares about galen
Baltsu wrote:
practical questions wrote:
Hello,
I have a practical question, which is, "What resources, expertise, and ability to thoroughly investigate athletes does WADA have that surpasses what USADA has?
WADA can re-test the samples. Those samples are good for 8 years and they have done that kind of tests for example regarding the medalists in Peking 2008. So WADA can re-test all the samples of the NOP athletes that are still available.
Is that something that USADA itself didn't already do during their 4-year investigation of Salazar and the NOP?
They need to investigate what led to Eric Jenkins thinking he was a rapper.
First, this news item getting GIANT LETTERS breaking on the front page is ridiculous. There's like 25 responses, and at least half are just snarky BS. Nothing is going to come of this "investigation." As others have said, it will be done in secret, and no report is going to be issued. No further action...