George Karl alleges PED use in NBA

[Satan]

http://www.news.com.au/sport/americ...h/news-story/1865fc55cf2c8ac36d0873729a657458
“I’m talking about performance-enhancing drugs — like steroids, human growth hormone, and so on. It’s obvious some of our players are doping. How are some guys getting older — yet thinner and fitter? How are they recovering from injuries so fast? Why the hell are they going to Germany in the off-season? I doubt it’s for the sauerkraut.

“More likely it’s for the newest, hard-to-detect blood boosters and PEDs they have in Europe. Unfortunately, drug testing always seems to be a couple steps behind drug hiding. Lance Armstrong never failed a drug test. I think we want the best athletes to succeed, not the biggest, richest cheaters employing the best scientists. But I don’t know what to do about it.

 

[jenny61_99]

And that's the problem. Nobody knows what to do.

 

[SonofSamsquanch]

Unfortunately, drug testing always seems to be a couple steps behind drug hiding. Lance Armstrong never failed a drug test.

Not you evil prince, I know you are quoting the article which is quoting somebody else, but the statement Armstrong never failed a drug test is a lie in itself, perpetuated by Armstrong for his belivers .

 

[the_interloper]

 

[Satan]

Before shots

 

[gavaniacono]

Gomer Pyle.

 

[SonofSamsquanch]

Gomer Pyle.

Surprise, surprise, surpriiiiissssse

 

[Satan]

Gomer Pyle.

 

[Aussie in exile]

http://www.news.com.au/sport/americ...h/news-story/1865fc55cf2c8ac36d0873729a657458
“I’m talking about performance-enhancing drugs — like steroids, human growth hormone, and so on. It’s obvious some of our players are doping. How are some guys getting older — yet thinner and fitter? How are they recovering from injuries so fast? Why the hell are they going to Germany in the off-season? I doubt it’s for the sauerkraut.

“More likely it’s for the newest, hard-to-detect blood boosters and PEDs they have in Europe. Unfortunately, drug testing always seems to be a couple steps behind drug hiding. Lance Armstrong never failed a drug test. I think we want the best athletes to succeed, not the biggest, richest cheaters employing the best scientists. But I don’t know what to do about it.

'Lance armstrong never failed a drug test"
Which raises the question "How many high profile AFL players have failed drug tests?"

 

[DERO]

'Lance armstrong never failed a drug test"
Which raises the question "How many high profile AFL players have failed drug tests?"

No but he did give a positive sample that was later traced back to him.

 

[DERO]

yaco55 can you remember the name of the dutch journalist who managed to put Lance's name to positive samples exposing him as a drug cheat?

 

[LoungeLizard]

yaco55 can you remember the name of the dutch journalist who managed to put Lance's name to positive samples exposing him as a drug cheat?

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...positive-for-steroids-four-times-in-1999-tour

didn't 2 essendon players test positive also?

 

[Muggs]

didn't 2 essendon players test positive also?

No two essendon players had elevated levels of TB4 in what was a new test.

Could not be determined if these levels were natural or not as not enough research done.

 

[LoungeLizard]

No two essendon players had elevated levels of TB4 in what was a new test.

Could not be determined if these levels were natural or not as not enough research done.

Elevated levels or not, it's still a positive test is it not?
If you read the link i put up, it's not much different to Armstrongs positive test

 

[Muggs]

Elevated levels or not, it's still a positive test is it not?

No it's not.

If you read the link i put up, it's not much different to Armstrongs positive test

Armstrong's test was consistent with externally administered steroids through the use of a cream. Key here externally administered.

As there is no anti doping test for TB4 CAS could not be sure if the elevated results were externally administered or naturally occurring, thus no positive test. The WADA expert witness did not rule out the results were endogenous. (Para 149).

Even WADA backed away using the elevated levels as evidence in their closing statement as the elevated levels were meaningless as there was no research done on men, let alone athletes only mice on what is "elevated". The "elevated" levels could well be normal.

Simply put how can you test positive for something there is no anti doping test for?

Edit. Also worth pointing out there were multiple players around the league that had similar "elevated" levels.

 

[LoungeLizard]

No it's not.



Armstrong's test was consistent with externally administered steroids through the use of a cream. Key here externally administered.

As there is no anti doping test for TB4 CAS could not be sure if the elevated results were externally administered or naturally occurring, thus no positive test. The WADA expert witness did not rule out the results were endogenous. (Para 149).

Even WADA backed away using the elevated levels as evidence in their closing statement as the elevated levels were meaningless as there was no research done on men, let alone athletes only mice on what is "elevated". The "elevated" levels could well be normal.

Simply put how can you test positive for something there is no anti doping test for?

Edit. Also worth pointing out there were multiple players around the league that had similar "elevated" levels.

So, the positive result on the tested essendon players, could not be a positive test because they don't have a test.
Armstongs positive result, could not be challenged because it could have been a cream.

 

[Muggs]

So, the positive result on the tested essendon players, could not be a positive test because they don't have a test.
Armstongs positive result, could not be challenged because it could have been a cream.

Yup the players challenged the test at CAS and for all players with elevated levels (both EFC and non EFC players) it could not be determined if it was the result of TB4 being administered.

In Armstrong case was determined it was steroids being administered and for what ever reason the authorities accepted his reason for how it was administered and did not charge him.

 

[LoungeLizard]

Yup the players challenged the test at CAS and for all players with elevated levels (both EFC and non EFC players) it could not be determined if it was the result of TB4 being administered.

In Armstrong case was determined it was steroids being administered and for what ever reason the authorities accepted his reason for how it was administered and did not charge him.

Both could not be determined, isn't that what i said?

 

[Muggs]

Both could not be determined, isn't that what i said?

Players could not be determined, Armstrong was a decision not to prosecute accepting his excuse.

To me that's a big difference, one is due their being no technolgy to determine if the players were guilty. One was the self policing cycling authorities deciding to accept the reasoning of the athelte as to why he took steroids once it was determined he did take steroids. Armstrong was effectively granted a post dated TUE (using today's terminology) allowing the use. Their was no doubt that Armstrong had steroids in his system externally administered, the how it was administered was the only question and it's questionable if that is even relevant.

One was not having a positive test and thus not able to charge a player (athelte) for having a positive test and deciding not to charge when there was a positive test.

That article you posted is critical of the UAI and it's relationship with Armstrong.

 

[LoungeLizard]

Players could not be determined, Armstrong was a decision not to prosecute accepting his excuse.

To me that's a big difference, one is due their being no technolgy to determine if the players were guilty. One was the self policing cycling authorities deciding to accept the reasoning of the athelte as to why he took steroids once it was determined he did take steroids. Armstrong was effectively granted a post dated TUE (using today's terminology) allowing the use. Their was no doubt that Armstrong had steroids in his system externally administered, the how it was administered was the only question.

To me there is a huge difference between not having a positive test and thus not able to charge a player (athelte) and having a positive test and deciding not to charge.

That article you posted is critical of the UAI for being to close to Armstrong.

But there was a positive test for TB4, it's just not advanced enough to determine if it was externally administered.
Both cases could not determine guilt.

 

[Muggs]

But there was a positive test for TB4, it's just not advanced enough to determine if it was externally administered.
Both cases could not determine guilt.

There was NO positive test for TB4 as there is no idea if the levels were natural or not. If natural can't be positive it's a normal human condition. The players argued both statistics and science that the test itself was meaningless.

On the natural side the players brought in experts who argued that there were natural reasons as to why the players were "elevated." Strenuous exercise, injury or injections of plasma platelets. Thus argued were not "elevated" but natural (para 146).

Further more they also argued what is "elevated" on statistical grounds (para 147). It's bit like me showing you a 2 litre jug of water and asking you if that is a lot of water? With out a reference point you have no idea if it's a lot or not. Sure you can test if it's water, but is the reference point a cup of water in which case 2L could be considered a lot, or is it comparing to a 44 gallon drum in which case it's not a lot. Without a reference point there can't be a positive test.

That's the main issue in the players case they were elevated compared to naturally occurring levels in mice, but once the defence team asked for further information about what are elevated levels using a group of AFL players from other clubs and German college atheltes as the reference point (see previous point about being naturally higher) it was discovered the 2 EFC players levels were not statistically elevated thus were not "positive". Change the reference point, change the result. Which is why WADA backed away from the tests they were meaningless, not positive but meaningless without a reference point and no one knows what the reference point is.

Simply put CAS found they did not test positive as no one has any ideas on what is a positive test for a athelte. You can keep saying they tested positive but on both biological grounds and statistical grounds there is no basis for saying they tested positively in an anti-doping sense. WADA also did not claim a "positive" test.

The way to get around what is "elevated" is to prove externally administered, not natural, thus levels and the reference point are irrelevant. The test did not do this nor was it claimed it did, some tests can tell the difference between the naturally occurring version and the externally administered version of a substance.

The players case was a failing in science on this point, not able to prove something. It failed on two grounds, not being able to prove was externally administered, and not being able prove the levels were unnatural.

Armstrong was humans deciding to accept the reason he provided after science proved he took steroids, this was a human failure, not science failure. He was administered steroids no question. Under the WADA code today he would be done, as the how is irrelevant.

To me the cases are complete opposites, Armstrong science proved he took steroids but humans using other reasoning decided it was ok based on how he said he took it, he never denied taking steroids just provided a reason why he tested positive. The EFC34 science could not prove they took TB4 but humans using other reasoning decided they did take it, after the players denied taking TB4.

 

[blackcat]

And that's the problem. Nobody knows what to do.

Savulescu does.

You legalize it with supervision and a z.

they are already doing it, so in effect, it becomes far safer. As it, it is pretty safe. Even bodybuiling. Lets say there have been three dozen bodybuilders die over the last 4 decades from roids and other PEDs. How many have used them, 400 thousand? those numbers are good in my perspective. A statistical regression and longitudinal study could give accurate numbers.

anyhow, far safer than working on a building site or a silicon mine in Congo and child miners. And is this an absurd example, absurd fallacy, why yes it is, but it is no more hysterical than "drugs are bad", "oh oh, think about the little kiddies".

well, fukc the little kiddies, but not in a pedo sense a'ight

 

[blackcat]

'Lance armstrong never failed a drug test"
Which raises the question "How many high profile AFL players have failed drug tests?"

them all, the entire AFL list never failed a drug test besides that Footscray cheat Justin Charles. Zgope1

or those Collingwood players Lachie Keefe and the standup comic Josh Thomas

 

[Satan]

them all, the entire AFL list never failed a drug test besides that Footscray cheat Justin Charles. Zgope1

or those Collingwood players Lachie Keefe and the standup comic Josh Thomas

Charles actually played elsewhere prior to Foots grey
Just saying

 

[blackcat]

Charles actually played elsewhere prior to Foots grey
Just saying

that is no help for me having a dig at doggies supporters innit