Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The end results....

Collapse

Unconfigured Ad Widget

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • The end results....

    While the scandal is still going wouldn't it be better to wait for the end results ?

    Maybe there will be more surprises...

  • #2
    Re: The end results....

    >While the scandal is still going wouldn't it be
    >better to wait for the end results ?

    Screw the B tests! The never-ending piecemeal leaking of names and insinuations is so much more fun. Speculations for everyone!

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: The end results....

      In all seriousness I think somebody at USADA has a major hard-on against track and field and is doing this on purpose. All the names could have been leaked at once, but this way the story stays in the news making headlines far longer.

      Either that or the Washington Post's Amy Shipley, who seems to to be breaking all the stories, is milking her Deep Throat for all its worth.

      Either way it's reprehensible.

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: The end results....

        Maybe USADA is leaking the names on purpose, but, if so, I think they are right. I still have a feeling that if they didn't, USATF, which is normally responsible for publishing test results, would find a way to cover it all up.
        Było smaszno, a jaszmije smukwijne...

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: The end results....

          > I still have a
          >feeling that if they didn't, USATF, which is
          >normally responsible for publishing test results,
          >would find a way to cover it all up.

          While I agree that the leaking of names in advance of B sample testing is a little excessive, to say nothing of blatantly against accepted procedures, I don't see how people can still think USATF could find a way to "cover it all up".

          Perhaps someone (Powell?) could explain how they can do this when many articles, including statements from USADA, say that the names of those who've tested positive have been passed on not only to USATF and the athletes themselves, but also to the IAAF.

          This has nothing to do with leaked names to the media, but the passing on of relevant information to the proper parties. Are people really of the belief that the IAAF, with all their bashing of the US over drugs, would be keen to joining them in covering this up?

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: The end results....

            do you REALLY think that B samples will turn up negative? its not like they are using drug dogs or voodoo to test the stuff.....these are lab tests

            they probably are guilty and they probably did it on purpose

            being stupid is not an excuse

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: The end results....

              Does the name Bernard Lagat ring a bell?

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: The end results....

                Very different tests. EPO vs. anabolic steroid tests are supposedly miles apart in difficulty. Not that false positives don't happen with steroids but Catlin said in a USA Today piece that the EPO test was not a simple procedure.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: The end results....

                  Didn't Merlene Ottey test positive for nandrolone in 1999 and somehow beat the test (B-sample?) before Sydney?

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: The end results....

                    That is not correct. She was able to establish that she had not taken it knowingly. That was the basis on which she was cleared.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: The end results....

                      My bad. Although I've heard, as of late, that not knowing was unacceptable as a defense. It'll be interesting this time to see who lives by the sword and dies by it.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: The end results....

                        >That is not correct. She was able to establish
                        >that she had not taken it knowingly. That was the
                        >basis on which she was cleared.>>

                        Not true: she was cleared a year later when an IAAF arbitration panel ruled--and I quote TF News September 2000--".....the lab had improperly tested the Jamaican sprinter's sample, relative to a specific-gravity measurement." The IAAF News later suggested that the arbitration panel had made some mathematical errors in its calculations but ruled that it couldn't overrule the panel (apparently even though they wanted to). So Ottey got off by being lucky, nothing else. Nobody has ever been cleared with an "I didn't know it was there" defense.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: The end results....

                          That makes even more sense. Remember Butch Reynolds' 1990 sample, which most people believe belonged to a runner in another lane? The IAAF swore upon its labeling and testing procedures, and wouldn't budge on its ruling.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: The end results....

                            I'm wondering if the World Sport status is ready to "loose" athletes because they used a drug (modafinil) which was not listed thetime they took it and the relation of this drug with stimulants is speculated because of the wide use of it and not on research and scientific evidence.

                            This is one thing. The THG story is even more complicated.

                            The related substance rule reminds me Tom Cruise on Minority Report...

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: The end results....

                              >I'm wondering if the World Sport status is ready
                              >to "loose" athletes because they used a drug
                              >(modafinil) which was not listed thetime they
                              >took it and the relation of this drug with
                              >stimulants is speculated because of the wide use
                              >of it and not on research and scientific
                              >evidence.

                              Who is the "World Sport status" and where has anyone pretending to be them stated athletes would be loose or lost?

                              Although I can't quote chapter and verse, I would say there is extensive research and scientific evidence for Modafinil being a stimulant given that it has been approved by the FDA to keep people awake and 'up'. Anyone who couldn't make an educated guess that a substance claiming to do that would likely not be allowed, whether stated explicitly or not, probably shouldn't be allowed to travel overseas to meets on their own.

                              This is one thing. The THG story is
                              >even more complicated.

                              Actually, THG is even simpler. There is scientific evidence it is an anabolic agent. Anti-doping rules EXPLICITLY state that anabolic agents are banned. What's so comlex?

                              The related substance
                              >rule reminds me Tom Cruise on Minority Report...

                              Wierd plotline in that movie, but I don't see the parallels. Have you read the exact words of the related substance rule?

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X