Advertisement
Boards Golf Society are looking for new members for 2022...read about the society and their planned outings here!
How to add spoiler tags, edit posts, add images etc. How to - a user's guide to the new version of Boards

PED

2456711

Comments



  • Adding 2 and 2 and getting anything other than 4.

    I see no reference to counting numbers in that article so I'm still unsure what you mean.




  • Don't know how she escaped a ban for that. Whatever story she concocted is meaningless as at the end of the day no sample was collected.

    Miss a test and you are guilty of a doping control violation, much like the Serbian bloke last year who's name escapes me.

    Troicki? Tennis is full of very mysterious behavior. Bartoli retiring after winning wimbledon is another. Shades of Hingis..




  • Giruilla wrote: »
    I see no reference to counting numbers in that article so I'm still unsure what you mean.

    Are you winding me up or have you genuinely never heard the expression before?




  • Giruilla wrote: »
    Troicki? Tennis is full of very mysterious behavior. Bartoli retiring after winning wimbledon is another. Shades of Hingis..

    Murray was tested right after Wimbledon last year, like literally right after the match so I assume Bartoli was too.




  • Murray was tested right after Wimbledon last year, like literally right after the match so I assume Bartoli was too.

    Exactly. Hingis served a silent doping ban.. apparently given the choice to retire or serve the ban in public and come back.


  • Advertisement


  • Are you winding me up or have you genuinely never heard the expression before?

    I asked what you meant by the dailymail coming up with 7. That article makes no conclusive statements, so I'm unsure what you are criticizing them for saying?




  • Giruilla wrote: »
    I asked what you meant by the dailymail coming up with 7. That article makes no conclusive statements, so I'm unsure what you are criticizing them for saying?

    The article takes two separate incidents and put them together to hint at whatever it is they're hinting at. If they're not hinting at doping then you must be the one putting two and two together because you chose to post this in the PED thread rather than the ongoing Wimbledon thread where it actually would have been relevant.




  • Giruilla wrote: »
    I see no reference to counting numbers in that article so I'm still unsure what you mean.

    It means trying to make the Serena story fit into the doping frame.

    Serena looked awful on court + past incident with drugs tester = must be a doping thing? Nah, Daily Mail are just looking to add more spice to the story.

    Anyway, these doping allegations seem to pop up regularly nowadays. Mostly circumstantial, which can do damage to someone's reputation.

    Once I see solid proof that Player X or Z has doped then I'll believe it.




  • The article takes two separate incidents and put them together to hint at whatever it is they're hinting at. If they're not hinting at doping then you must be the one putting two and two together because you chose to post this in the PED thread rather than the ongoing Wimbledon thread where it actually would have been relevant.

    If you think they're hinting at doping that's entirely you coming up with the conclusion. The article is about her strange unexplained behavior.

    I'm shocked that people would actually wolf down tripe that explains her behavior to be from a 'virus'.




  • RosyLily wrote: »
    Anyway, these doping allegations seem to pop up regularly nowadays. Mostly circumstantial, which can do damage to someone's reputation.

    Do you see Serena Williams skipping a drugs test as circumstantial?


  • Advertisement


  • Giruilla wrote: »
    If you think they're hinting at doping that's entirely you coming up with the conclusion. The article is about her strange unexplained behavior.

    I'm shocked that people would actually wolf down tripe that explains her behavior to be from a 'virus'.

    I came to the conclusion it was about doping because the link is in the thread about doping where you put it.




  • Giruilla wrote: »
    Do you see Serena Williams skipping a drugs test as circumstantial?

    Wasn't referring to Serena, just in general.




  • RosyLily wrote: »
    Wasn't referring to Serena, just in general.

    I never said you were, I was merely asking the question.




  • TBH, I never heard that story until you mentioned it.




  • Murray was tested right after Wimbledon last year, like literally right after the match so I assume Bartoli was too.

    Hence the snap retirement. She fails and between the ITF and her they decide they can't publicise the fact the ladies champ was caught cheating, do they force her to retire. That's how the theory would go.

    Whether the evidence is circumstantial or not there are far too many parallels with what's happening in tennis now with what happened in other sports in the past. Armstrong tested positive at least twice during his cycling career yet this was kept hushed up by the sports governing body, it would be ludicrous to suggest the same couldn't happen in tennis or any other high profile sport.

    If there was proper Olympic style testing, with the same rigour as cycling or athletics in tennis they'd catch more cheats.

    Problem is catching the cheats is not really in any of the major interests in the sport's interests. That's why they chronically under fund the testing program even when prize money is increasing hand over fist




  • Hence the snap retirement. She fails and between the ITF and her they decide they can't publicise the fact the ladies champ was caught cheating, do they force her to retire. That's how the theory would go.

    Whether the evidence is circumstantial or not there are far too many parallels with what's happening in tennis now with what happened in other sports in the past. Armstrong tested positive at least twice during his cycling career yet this was kept hushed up by the sports governing body, it would be ludicrous to suggest the same couldn't happen in tennis or any other high profile sport.

    If there was proper Olympic style testing, with the same rigour as cycling or athletics in tennis they'd catch more cheats.

    Problem is catching the cheats is not really in any of the major interests in the sport's interests. That's why they chronically under fund the testing program even when prize money is increasing hand over fist

    I'm fairly sure that even if someone tests positive in a drugs test, they don't just go public with it immediately. There has to be an investigation into it. There's a whole process that has to be followed through on before names are released to the public, which is probably why it took so long to take down Lance Armstrong. There has to be a solid basis for accusing someone of knowingly taking PEDs. You can't just start naming and shaming people on the basis of a positive test, much less conjecture. I mean, John McEnroe claims that he was unwittingly taking steroids for a time during his career, and Andre Agassi tested positive for meth. Given the drugs tend to be way ahead of the testing, there probably has to be proof that someone is taking something knowing that it will give them an edge they wouldn't normally have.

    It's all kinda complicated.




  • I'm fairly sure that even if someone tests positive in a drugs test, they don't just go public with it immediately. There has to be an investigation into it. There's a whole process that has to be followed through on before names are released to the public, which is probably why it took so long to take down Lance Armstrong. There has to be a solid basis for accusing someone of knowingly taking PEDs. You can't just start naming and shaming people on the basis of a positive test, much less conjecture. I mean, John McEnroe claims that he was unwittingly taking steroids for a time during his career, and Andre Agassi tested positive for meth. Given the drugs tend to be way ahead of the testing, there probably has to be proof that someone is taking something knowing that it will give them an edge they wouldn't normally have.

    It's all kinda complicated.

    It's the complete lack of transparency that allows this kind of thing to go on.

    People fAil tests all the time and the fact is pupil used pretty quickly.

    The reason it took so long to take down Armstrong was because him and the uci were in cahoots and he had the legal and financial muscle to silence critics. Like he was granted an exemption for banned substance after he tested positive for it in one instance.

    As for whether people knowingly dope or not the onus is very much on them to ensure there aren't banned substances in their systems. Every single failed test I can recall comes with some sort of flimsy excuse, normally that they unwittingly took something.

    Look at the World Cup. There hadn't been a positive test since 1994. Yet every major athletics championship sees loads of high profile busts. It would be ludicrous to suggest that individuals in football wouldn't cheat, given the size of the rewards for doing so.

    The fact is, when it comes to doping, neither the authorities nor the public at large really care about rooting out this scourge.




  • It's the complete lack of transparency that allows this kind of thing to go on.

    People fAil tests all the time and the fact is pupil used pretty quickly.

    The reason it took so long to take down Armstrong was because him and the uci were in cahoots and he had the legal and financial muscle to silence critics. Like he was granted an exemption for banned substance after he tested positive for it in one instance.

    As for whether people knowingly dope or not the onus is very much on them to ensure there aren't banned substances in their systems. Every single failed test I can recall comes with some sort of flimsy excuse, normally that they unwittingly took something.

    Look at the World Cup. There hadn't been a positive test since 1994. Yet every major athletics championship sees loads of high profile busts. It would be ludicrous to suggest that individuals in football wouldn't cheat, given the size of the rewards for doing so.

    The fact is, when it comes to doping, neither the authorities nor the public at large really care about rooting out this scourge.

    Actually a number of players on the Mexico team tested positive for a banned substance not all that long ago. Turned out they'd eaten contaminated meat and the charges were dropped. The accusation all but destroyed the prospects of the goalkeeper, who has now gone on to become one of the stars of the tournament and is probably finally going to get that coveted move to a top European club. I don't think there would have been any great rush in FIFA to protect virtual unknowns from Mexico and the accusation was enough to do the damage to their careers as they were just beginning.

    I'm sure there is some element if turning a blind eye to the stars of certain sports, but I also think there are plenty of legalities surrounding it too. It's pretty dangerous to accuse people of something and potentially destroy careers only to find out there's been an honest mistake. Stuff like this needs to be investigated properly.




  • Actually a number of players on the Mexico team tested positive for a banned substance not all that long ago. Turned out they'd eaten contaminated meat and the charges were dropped.

    The same old excuse. You get caught for doping, all you do is look for a product that contains potential traces of what you got caught taking. Didn't Tyler Hamilton explain this is what they do, and I've read that from numerous other sources.

    Mexico keeping good company with the cyclists here:

    http://sports.espn.go.com/oly/cycling/news/story?id=5632256
    Tour de France champion Alberto Contador's claim that the steak he ate is to blame for his positive doping test is plausible, experts say, since the drug he's accused of taking is sometimes illegally given to beef cattle.

    http://www.canada.com/sports/Cyclist+Michael+Rogers+cleared+after+doping+case+blamed+contaminated+meat/9766683/story.html
    Former world time trial champion Michael Rogers can race again after cycling’s governing body accepted that meat he ate in China likely caused his positive doping test.

    How convenient they fail drugs tests and all blame it on 'contaminated meat'. So what.. you can juice to the gills and blame it on meat if you get caught?!

    Football:
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/football/europe/8299496.stm
    Juventus defender Fabio Cannavaro has criticised the media after he was cleared of doping by the Italian Olympic Committee (Coni).
    The Italy skipper, 36, took a medicine containing banned substance cortisone after a wasp sting on 28 August and failed a dope test two days later.
    He fails a drugs test - which they probably take about once a year in football - and blames it on a medicine. How unlucky was he to get stung by a wasp and fail a drugs test two days later! How are people so gullible to swallow this.

    Golf:
    http://www.bbc.com/sport/0/golf/22362070
    Vijay Singh has been cleared of doping by the PGA Tour despite admitting using a banned substance.
    Fiji's former world number one told US magazine Sports Illustrated he used deer antler spray, which contains small amounts of growth hormone.
    Ha its pathetic..

    That was off the top of my head.. if you want to read more
    http://www.topendsports.com/medicine/doping-excuses.htm




  • The red herrings that come out to excuse doping....:(

    Carl Lewis was found to have ingested a banned substance from a cold remedy. The levels were so very very low that the ingestion was not at all a PED. I do believe that he was a genuine clean athlete. That same substance is NOT on the banned list today.

    I would say most red herrings are bogus, but there has to be some clean athletes and honest athletes who get caught out due to circumstances that were out of their control. An yes, I realize that is their sole responsibility to make sure their bodies are free from banned substances, but athletes these days place a lot of trust in many people. I would say it's quite tough for honest and law abiding athletes to make sure that they stay drug free.


  • Advertisement


  • walshb wrote: »
    Carl Lewis was found to have ingested a banned substance from a cold remedy. The levels were so very very low that the ingestion was not at all a PED. I do believe that he was a genuine clean athlete.

    .. em
    Lewis has now acknowledged that he failed three tests during the 1988 US Olympic trials, which under international rules at the time should have prevented him from competing in the Seoul games two months later.
    http://www.theguardian.com/sport/2003/apr/24/athletics.duncanmackay

    He won a gold medal in whats considered the dirtiest race in history! The silver medalist in that race - Linford Christie - has been categorically proven to be a juicer.




  • Giruilla wrote: »
    .. em


    http://www.theguardian.com/sport/2003/apr/24/athletics.duncanmackay

    He won a gold medal in whats considered the dirtiest race in history! The silver medalist in that race - Linford Christie - has been categorically proven to be a juicer.

    I know about the affair. I am simply saying that I believe that Lewis was a genuine talent and that what he ingested was NOT a PED. Shown to be so. It's not on the list today. Back then almost everything was on the banned list. The US authorities exonerated him for the inadvertent ingestion of a banned substance. The levels were barely detectable

    Johnson was on hard drugs, actual PEDs. His times and improvements prove this. Lewis' career, times, progression and natural talent all tell me that he was not juicing.

    I believe had Lewis juiced like Johnson we may have seen a sun 9.6 from Lewis that day.

    Lewis' actions and behaviour also add to my belief that he was clean. He was quite vocal about the use of PEDs. Yes, so have other proven PED users, but Lewis as far as I know never ever tested positive for a PED. He went on after 1988 and into the 90s and never failed a drugs test for PEDs.




  • walshb wrote: »
    I know about the affair. I am simply saying that I believe that Lewis was a genuine talent and that what he ingested was NOT a PED. Shown to be so. It's not on the list today. Back then almost everything was on the banned list. The US authorities exonerated him for the inadvertent ingestion of a banned substance. The levels were barely detectable

    Johnson was on hard drugs, actual PEDs. His times and improvements prove this. Lewis' career, times, progression and natural talent all tell me that he was not juicing.

    I believe had Lewis juiced like Johnson we may have seen a sun 9.6 from Lewis that day.

    Lewis' actions and behaviour also add to my belief that he was clean. He was quite vocal about the use of PEDs. Yes, so have other proven PED users, but Lewis as far as I know never ever tested positive for a PED. He went on after 1988 and into the 90s and never failed a drugs test for PEDs.

    Theres really not enough evidence to prove either way on Lewis, so its going to come down to opinion.

    Anyway, doping 'in competition' is almost pointless and stupid to do. Did they even do 'out of competition' testing back then? I doubt it. In my opinion I don't see how a clean athlete could have competed against all those guys proven to be juiced up. My same opinion holds for Usain Bolt today.




  • Just on the subject of blaming your steak dinner for failing a test... I can't remember where exactly it was but quite recently I saw some swimmers talking about how they were given notice before heading off to a competition somewhere to avoid eating any red meat as it may lead to failed drugs tests.
    If there are places like this where it's known the meat is contaminated with whatever and they're warned not to eat any then the "it was in my dinner" defense really shouldn't be accepted anymore.




  • Giruilla wrote: »
    Theres really not enough evidence to prove either way on Lewis, so its going to come down to opinion.

    Anyway, doping 'in competition' is almost pointless and stupid to do. Did they even do 'out of competition' testing back then? I doubt it. In my opinion I don't see how a clean athlete could have competed against all those guys proven to be juiced up. My same opinion holds for Usain Bolt today.

    I'd like to believe that we do have genuine clean greats in sport today that are doing brilliant things through hard work and dedication. And, beating other athletes who are cheating. If we cannot think this possible then what's it all for? We may as well scrap any record that exists in any athletic/endurance based sport.

    I believe the Johnson story to be the most impacting and insightful example of how effective hard drugs can be to an already very capable athlete. He went from 3-4 meters behind Lewis to 3-4 meters ahead of Lewis in a couple of years. Lewis knew there was something amiss.

    Calvin Smith is always held up as the clean guy, but if so, how come his 9.93 time was never questioned? I believe Lewis to be a naturally faster and talented sprinter, yet Lewis didn't break that time until 1988, and he broke it by a hair. I believe that Smith is clean, but logic tells me that so was Lewis. If he was not clean and was using PEDs then I think 9.93 would have been fairly "pedestrian" for him.




  • walshb wrote: »
    Lewis knew there was something amiss.

    Johnson says the same thing about Lewis!

    The thing thats strange for me is athletes generally don't take steroids in competition. All the muscle building is done out of competition and its when you're off them and they're out of your system that the effects for speed come through.
    I really wouldn't be surprised if Johnsons beer was tampered with in that respect. Allegedly Carl Lewis' friend Andre Jackson admitted to spiking his beer with roids.
    Johnson is p*ssed off with it because he probably knows there shouldn't have been anything in his system at the time.. because he was genuinely doing it out of competition. Which is likely Lewis was doing too.
    walshb wrote: »
    We may as well scrap any record that exists in any athletic/endurance based sport.

    Have you seen the current world records for womens track?
    100/200/400/800 all stand from the 1980's! You think they're legit?




  • Just on the subject of blaming your steak dinner for failing a test... I can't remember where exactly it was but quite recently I saw some swimmers talking about how they were given notice before heading off to a competition somewhere to avoid eating any red meat as it may lead to failed drugs tests.
    If there are places like this where it's known the meat is contaminated with whatever and they're warned not to eat any then the "it was in my dinner" defense really shouldn't be accepted anymore.

    I think a lot of it comes down to whether the amount ingested is actually enough to effect performance. Just because something showed up on a test, doesn't mean that it was necessarily of performance enhancing levels. There is always going to be suspicion, but there needs to be proof that people are knowingly taking something that is actually making them better than everyone else. That's what was proved with Lance Armstrong. I wouldn't be all that surprised if a similar truth is revealed about Michael Phelps or Usain Bolt in the future, but you can't just start throwing people out just because you suspect something. I would imagine you're leaving yourself very open to having the sh*t sued out of you if you accuse someone without concrete proof that they were taking something knowingly and that it was actually making them better athletes than they would be normally.




  • Giruilla wrote: »
    Johnson says the same thing about Lewis!

    The thing thats strange for me is athletes generally don't take steroids in competition. All the muscle building is done out of competition and its when you're off them and they're out of your system that the effects for speed come through.
    I really wouldn't be surprised if Johnsons beer was tampered with in that respect. Allegedly Carl Lewis' friend Andre Jackson admitted to spiking his beer with roids.
    Johnson is p*ssed off with it because he probably knows there shouldn't have been anything in his system at the time.. because he was genuinely doing it out of competition. Which is likely Lewis was doing too.



    Have you seen the current world records for womens track?
    100/200/400/800 all stand from the 1980's! You think they're legit?

    What was amiss with Lewis, though? He wasn't running these fantastic time, nor was he suddenly dominating a man who used to dominate him. Johnson's full of crap in that regard. It was he who went from 10.10 to 9.8 in a couple of years. It was he who went from 4 meters behind Lewis to 4 meters ahead of Lewis in a couple of years.

    Da Shins Kelly: "There is always going to be suspicion, but there needs to be proof that people are knowingly taking something that is actually making them better than everyone else. "

    I agree with this to an extent, and it's perfect for the Lewis example. Lewis wasn't the one caught with anabolic steroids in his system. Lewis' times were not near as improved/dramatic as Johnson's. When all the evidence is weighed up I believe Lewis comes out as honest.




  • Giruilla wrote: »



    Have you seen the current world records for womens track?
    100/200/400/800 all stand from the 1980's! You think they're legit?

    I have, and yes, they are all well documented and suspected. But, why stop there? How about Kevin Young's 46.7 for 400 MH? Jonathon Edwards 18.29 meters? We could dismiss a lot of WRs in any sport as being delivered by a cheater in that case. I am not naive to believe that all accomplishments/records were obtained clean. But, at the same time, I wouldn't be so pessimistic as to think that none were delivered by honest athletes who happen to have amazing natural ability.


  • Advertisement


  • walshb wrote: »
    What was amiss with Lewis, though? He wasn't running these fantastic time, nor was he suddenly dominating a man who used to dominate him. Johnson's full of crap in that regard. It was he who went from 10.10 to 9.8 in a couple of years. It was he who went from 4 meters behind Lewis to 4 meters ahead of Lewis in a couple of years.

    Da Shins Kelly: "There is always going to be suspicion, but there needs to be proof that people are knowingly taking something that is actually making them better than everyone else. "

    I agree with this to an extent, and it's perfect for the Lewis example. Lewis wasn't the one caught with anabolic steroids in his system. Lewis' times were not near as improved/dramatic as Johnson's. When all the evidence is weighed up I believe Lewis comes out as honest.

    You realise why it doesn't really make sense for someone to be caught with steroids 'in competition'? It's been near confirmed that Johnsons sample was tampered with.

    You seem to be basing your opinion that Lewis is clean and Johnson isn't solely based on sudden performance gains over time. By the same logic you would think Lance Armstrong was clean and Chris Froome was a juicer?


Advertisement