Give me a list of everything at GNC that will result in a positive test for SARMs. Since lots of supplements have them in them, you will have no problem listing a half dozen right?
The tainted supplement excuse is about as believable as tainted pork...
You really think tainted supplements are that rare? Why do you think pro athletes are so freaking careful about the supplements they take? Because tainted supplements are NOT rare. And the whole point of a tainted supplement is that you CAN'T get "a list of everything at GNC that will result in a positive test for SARMs"; tainted means the ingredient isn't listed, and you'd have to test the supplements to know whether the SARMs are included.
Actually, "tainted" supplements are pretty rare. Every NCAA athlete is scared about it during orientation, but if you're buying protein or creatine or something normal from a normal shop, you're 100% safe. The only times people end up with actually tainted supplements is when they buy something like "XTRA TEST BOOST SUPREME" or some trucker speed at a gas station. Elite endurance athletes really have no business buying sketchy preworkouts. Didn't like NoExplode contain some amphetamine for a bit? But that's not something any actual athlete would be buying. The only thing Meade would be buying is like protein or beta alanine, and if it's from a half-reputable brand it'll be A-okay.
Isn't that what he basically said? Except for the regret it part.
No it isn't remotely the same. He is claiming he impulsively bought some drink that had SARMs. That isn't a believable story. Saying you decided to dope to get huge and didn't realize you were in the testing pool still is almost believable.
And the likely story is more like "I retired, decided to ask my drug supplier for the last decade what he recommend for mass and he said try these SARMs" is obviously one he can't tell us....
Your definition of being a similar statement is a lot different than mine. To me what he said is basically.
"I'm retired. I'm trying to gain weight. I'm not paying any attention to what I'm taking. I grabbed some XYZ out of the machine. Maybe that's what caused me to test positive."
Now why he would even do the test if he's retired is a good question. I guess he did not file "the paperwork".
As for if this XYZ supplement caused his postive test or not is somewhat irrelevant. If he was retired, it does not matter if he takes PED's. It's not illegal. There's lots of "supplements" which can cause a positive test for a any of us. Lots of people use PED to help with their fitness. Whether this is wise or not is a different question.
It might matter if this positive test is from drugs he took while competing which his does not take any more. i.e. it stayed in his system since June.
It might be relevant if he was not really retired.
It might be relevant if he is still taking PED even though he is retired because he likes the effects.
We don't really know, but if he's retired then a positive PED test is meaningless.
Do you not get he said he drank a workout drink from a vending machine.
Workout drinks in vending machines do not contain expensive SARMs that are not approved for human consumption.
He is lying about the workout drink from a vending machine to make it seem he took them accidentally, when he obviously took SARMs knowingly.
Is Ostarine expensive. Jonathan Gault did ask him extensively what was the name of the drink and never got an answer.
I"ve told hiim to tell Mead we'd like to test it.
did Jonathan Gault ask him why he took a drug test when, in his mind, he'd been retired for months? why he presumably kept updating his whereabouts so drug testers could find him, if he had been retired for months?
basic stuff of journalism here... he should have asked. the questions should be addressed in in the story whether or not LRC has the answers.
pathetic. Makes me wonder just how many athletes out there are doping. I used to think it was just a few but now-a-days I think it's the majority, the caveat being not many actually get caught
According to the Gault writeup, Nike's support ended in July, after the World Championships.
Why are you guys looking so hard for a lie? Fabricating apparent pseudo-lies are poor substitutes for truth.
Mead's peak performances were 2014-2017. What's the thinking here?
You sometimes give away that you are just a troll. You did it here. You have frequently said that there is no evidence that PEDs even help and now you are mentioning his peak years being some time ago as alleged evidence that he has not been doping. You have been busted as a troll.
I have always thought it was a lame cop-out to call me a "troll". But if by "troll", you mean I asked a question, "trolling" for an answer, I guess that's stretching the meaning of "troll" a bit too far.
Let's be careful with the ambiguous term PED. I have always said unconditionally that peformance enhancing drugs (PEDs) enhance performance -- that's a tautology by definition and qualification. I rarely use the term "PED" though, in contexts where it is ambiguous. It is not always clear which drugs can be considered performance enhancing for the sport and event and athletes in question.
I didn't link any of this to "my thinking" about PEDs, but asked "What's the thinking here?" Given his peak performances from 5 years ago, did he start doping before the peak, during the peak, or after?
And why 5 years later with ostarine or ligandrol? In none of these threads, can I ever recall anyone talking about any benefits of ostarine or ligandrol for distance runners.
You sometimes give away that you are just a troll. You did it here. You have frequently said that there is no evidence that PEDs even help and now you are mentioning his peak years being some time ago as alleged evidence that he has not been doping. You have been busted as a troll.
I have always thought it was a lame cop-out to call me a "troll". But if by "troll", you mean I asked a question, "trolling" for an answer, I guess that's stretching the meaning of "troll" a bit too far.
Let's be careful with the ambiguous term PED. I have always said unconditionally that peformance enhancing drugs (PEDs) enhance performance -- that's a tautology by definition and qualification. I rarely use the term "PED" though, in contexts where it is ambiguous. It is not always clear which drugs can be considered performance enhancing for the sport and event and athletes in question.
I didn't link any of this to "my thinking" about PEDs, but asked "What's the thinking here?" Given his peak performances from 5 years ago, did he start doping before the peak, during the peak, or after?
And why 5 years later with ostarine or ligandrol? In none of these threads, can I ever recall anyone talking about any benefits of ostarine or ligandrol for distance runners.
Much of everything T&F athletes do is bro science. The fad now is adding deadlifts to T&F training routine. I know college Am. football players ruined by deadlifts but the fad continues, T&F. How could a scientific study be ethically done using any steroid or HgH? Eg. Give 1000 sub-2:10 800m women steroids and give another 1000 sub-2:10 women placebo. Can't happen so bro science continues.
Mr. Mead retired within less than a month of recording the positive test; correct? And he claims he knows the source of the unintended contamination; correct? Unless he has amnesia I presume he goes back to the gym owner and asks do you have the same products you had stocked in the vending machine as you had one month ago? He than asks can I see that list of what was stocked on said known USADA test date in your vending machine records? I have to imagine he could narrow it down to maybe one of three products and track down their likely “lot/batch” numbers and get product samples from those batches to test if he acted quickly.
And given that he was a past Olympian I believe he meets USADA’s standard of past performance to assist him financially in covering legal expenses such as the expensive costs of supplement testing; if for some reason a former Olympian like himself could not afford it as Covid I know made money tight for many athletes. At his level as a former Olympian if he knows the source (which apparently is a workout drink from a vending machine) see is as likely if he actually tried to be completely unable to track down samples of the same product from the same product lots/batches for testing—-it sounds like no effort was put forth. Which brings me to the obvious question of with your reputation on the line why not put forth a little effort to try to defend it?
Yes finding the tainted product doesn’t get you off receiving a sanction all together but it reduces the extent in which you are publicly considered “at fault” and an intentional cheater and it reduces the associated ban from 3-4 years to a typical 2 year reduced sanction; even if he wanted to retire anyways it’s still worth the effort to reduce somewhat the negative public opinion that an anti-doping positive test announcement brings upon you that you may still have to answer to outside strictly the sporting world… Am I wrong in any pieces of my logic puzzle here? I suspect intentionally doping but for bulking up not for cheating in running as his stories of stated retirement intentions with other pro runners seem to check out. Let me know if this has already been addressed; the why to why the source of alleged contamination has not been found.
LRC have stated when they interviewed him, they asked repeatedly for the name of the drink, and even offered to have it tested, by Mead refused to cooperate with that piece of information
When we have typically seen doping busts in the past the coach, the agent, the group and the athlete have a spotlight on them. I am not excusing Mr. Mead from any of this but I have not seen much in the way of Rowland (who also had Nijel Amos when busted), Total Sports (who also had Houlihan busted) and the OTC (which is the 3rd Oregon group to find themselves in doping hot water). Will there be sanctions leveled on Rowland and Total Sports? Or are coaches and agents teflon in situations like this?
No it isn't remotely the same. He is claiming he impulsively bought some drink that had SARMs. That isn't a believable story. Saying you decided to dope to get huge and didn't realize you were in the testing pool still is almost believable.
And the likely story is more like "I retired, decided to ask my drug supplier for the last decade what he recommend for mass and he said try these SARMs" is obviously one he can't tell us....
Your definition of being a similar statement is a lot different than mine. To me what he said is basically.
"I'm retired. I'm trying to gain weight. I'm not paying any attention to what I'm taking. I grabbed some XYZ out of the machine. Maybe that's what caused me to test positive."
Now why he would even do the test if he's retired is a good question. I guess he did not file "the paperwork".
As for if this XYZ supplement caused his postive test or not is somewhat irrelevant. If he was retired, it does not matter if he takes PED's. It's not illegal. There's lots of "supplements" which can cause a positive test for a any of us. Lots of people use PED to help with their fitness. Whether this is wise or not is a different question.
It might matter if this positive test is from drugs he took while competing which his does not take any more. i.e. it stayed in his system since June.
It might be relevant if he was not really retired.
It might be relevant if he is still taking PED even though he is retired because he likes the effects.
We don't really know, but if he's retired then a positive PED test is meaningless.
He can take whatever he wants. But if you get busted taking PEDs and you come up with some lame excuse like I ate a burrito or drank a supplement, nobody is going to believe you.
Again who retires and immediately starts doping? Who doesn't spend 6 months seeing where diet and beginner gains gets you? Probably the same type of guy who thinks drugs are part of athletics...
Your definition of being a similar statement is a lot different than mine. To me what he said is basically.
"I'm retired. I'm trying to gain weight. I'm not paying any attention to what I'm taking. I grabbed some XYZ out of the machine. Maybe that's what caused me to test positive."
Now why he would even do the test if he's retired is a good question. I guess he did not file "the paperwork".
As for if this XYZ supplement caused his postive test or not is somewhat irrelevant. If he was retired, it does not matter if he takes PED's. It's not illegal. There's lots of "supplements" which can cause a positive test for a any of us. Lots of people use PED to help with their fitness. Whether this is wise or not is a different question.
It might matter if this positive test is from drugs he took while competing which his does not take any more. i.e. it stayed in his system since June.
It might be relevant if he was not really retired.
It might be relevant if he is still taking PED even though he is retired because he likes the effects.
We don't really know, but if he's retired then a positive PED test is meaningless.
He can take whatever he wants. But if you get busted taking PEDs and you come up with some lame excuse like I ate a burrito or drank a supplement, nobody is going to believe you.
Again who retires and immediately starts doping? Who doesn't spend 6 months seeing where diet and beginner gains gets you? Probably the same type of guy who thinks drugs are part of athletics...
Banned substances are in a lot of things. If you no longer care what you ingest because you're retired then it would be pretty easy to get caught. What a waste of resources to test this man.
He can take whatever he wants. But if you get busted taking PEDs and you come up with some lame excuse like I ate a burrito or drank a supplement, nobody is going to believe you.
Again who retires and immediately starts doping? Who doesn't spend 6 months seeing where diet and beginner gains gets you? Probably the same type of guy who thinks drugs are part of athletics...
Banned substances are in a lot of things. If you no longer care what you ingest because you're retired then it would be pretty easy to get caught. What a waste of resources to test this man.
List all the things out there with SARMs that people will randomly consume. Heres a hint: protein drinks at the gym aren't one of them. Hell I would believe the 'I have no clue what a SARM is " excuse more than the "Must be that one protein drink I bought. " Excuse.
If he didn't want to be tested, he could have retired. He didn't. You can see why he uses the bs excuse. Cause suckers believe him. At best he actively chose to start doping once he retired. At worst he doped his whole career. If he just started doping after retirement why the lame excuse? Why not just tell the truth?
He can take whatever he wants. But if you get busted taking PEDs and you come up with some lame excuse like I ate a burrito or drank a supplement, nobody is going to believe you.
Again who retires and immediately starts doping? Who doesn't spend 6 months seeing where diet and beginner gains gets you? Probably the same type of guy who thinks drugs are part of athletics...
Banned substances are in a lot of things. If you no longer care what you ingest because you're retired then it would be pretty easy to get caught. What a waste of resources to test this man.
People who retired aren't tested. You have to be an active competitive athlete to be tested - otherwise every other jogger would be tested.
He has. You don't put muscle on an ectomorph without some bodybuilding drugs.
Right. But you said "no one dopes who has retired". But we all know that is false. It's easy to see why someone who has been incredibly lean all their life with years of low T would want to take a short cut to bulk up after retirement. If Meade came clean and admitted he intentionally doped post retirement, this would all be a lot more believable.
Competitive athletes dope; not athletes who have withdrawn from competition. What reason do they have to dope? Hall no longer raced but became a bodybuilder. That isn't the same.
According to the Gault writeup, Nike's support ended in July, after the World Championships.
Why are you guys looking so hard for a lie? Fabricating apparent pseudo-lies are poor substitutes for truth.
Mead's peak performances were 2014-2017. What's the thinking here?
You sometimes give away that you are just a troll. You did it here. You have frequently said that there is no evidence that PEDs even help and now you are mentioning his peak years being some time ago as alleged evidence that he has not been doping. You have been busted as a troll.
His life's purpose is to defend doping cheats and to argue that doping doesn't help them - two contradictory positions. It is making an occupation out of lying.
You sometimes give away that you are just a troll. You did it here. You have frequently said that there is no evidence that PEDs even help and now you are mentioning his peak years being some time ago as alleged evidence that he has not been doping. You have been busted as a troll.
His life's purpose is to defend doping cheats and to argue that doping doesn't help them - two contradictory positions. It is making an occupation out of lying.
He must surely be getting paid to do this. But the standard of his trolling has been deteriorating recently. Earlier in this thread he actually claimed that Nijel Amos may have bought the same contaminated drink from the same gym vending machine.
His life's purpose is to defend doping cheats and to argue that doping doesn't help them - two contradictory positions. It is making an occupation out of lying.
He must surely be getting paid to do this. But the standard of his trolling has been deteriorating recently. Earlier in this thread he actually claimed that Nijel Amos may have bought the same contaminated drink from the same gym vending machine.
That was me just trying to guess what you could possibly think the link could be between Mead with SARMs, and Amos with "not a SARMs but let's try to lump them together anyway".
You sometimes give away that you are just a troll. You did it here. You have frequently said that there is no evidence that PEDs even help and now you are mentioning his peak years being some time ago as alleged evidence that he has not been doping. You have been busted as a troll.
His life's purpose is to defend doping cheats and to argue that doping doesn't help them - two contradictory positions. It is making an occupation out of lying.
"Defend doping cheats" -- another lame, simple-minded response, meant to distract and avoid.
In the case of Mead, the facts are that he admitted to the violations, accepted his sanction, then retired. I have accepted his violation and ban, as has Mead and USADA. I offer no defense for these violations which are uncontested.
I see a lot of speculation and searching for lies, but this has more to do with a set of anonymous nobodies looking for confirmation and affirmation than anything related to Mead's violations. WADA doesn't really care about the source unless the athlete is trying to establish no-fault, non-negligence, or non-intentional, which is not the case here. He accepted the full sanction, with credit for early acceptance. Any speculation about the source is simply pure gossip fueled by a lack of knowledge, and according to Gault, Mead doesn't feel the need to "spend too much energy" explaining it to the masses. Note that his sanction is tolled while he is retired.