Duck Pucks wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
Self-description? The evidence is the fact you are bragging but have nothing to back it up. No proof of anything. Bag of wind, without doubt.
Um, you gave me those attributes by claiming I'm on TRT.
I don't even need evidence if you're complimenting me like that. It's the highest form of praise for a clean athlete with old man strength in spades.
There you again. You could give the POTUS lessons in bragging.
This is such odd old dude behavior.. Did you miss out on playground squabbles as a child?
I'm going to check if this is some sort of dementia symptom. Just bizarre.
Armstronglivs wrote:
Duck Pucks wrote:
Um, you gave me those attributes by claiming I'm on TRT.
I don't even need evidence if you're complimenting me like that. It's the highest form of praise for a clean athlete with old man strength in spades.
There you again. You could give the POTUS lessons in bragging.
Humbly accepting accolades is not bragging.
There you go again. False humility. Bragging again. You've got a head bigger than the Trump Baby. And full of as much air.
I know you are but what am I disease wrote:
This is such odd old dude behavior.. Did you miss out on playground squabbles as a child?
I'm going to check if this is some sort of dementia symptom. Just bizarre.
You have such an odd idea of what "old dude behaviour" requires. Mostly it involves the "aged" meekly bearing the vacuous remarks of the adolescent and the juvenile, such as yourself, with your misplaced sense of your own understanding of the world around you.
The facts are there. Despite your creative suggestion, the adverse finding cannot be meaningly "confirmed" by any response from me, but only be the B-sample, which did not corroborate the A-sample result. I'm not defending against an accusation so much as saying that these accusations died in 2003. It's up to you now if you still want to play ostrich. In a 2009 interview with "nyvelocity", Michael Ashenden said, regarding the 2004 testing on Lance's 1999 urine samples: "And you want to make sure that you, for example, weren’t looking at urine that has been contaminated with bacteria, or isn’t what we call unstable urine, where sometimes the bands shift not because of EPO use, but because of some other factors." These tests of Lance's samples occurred in the 2004-2005 timeframe, fresh after Lagat's failed tests, and Ashenden describes precisely the situation that can be found in the report of Lagat's B-sample tests: The A-sample "bands" shifted, and the B-sample "bands" had shifted even further. That's in the report that you didn't bother to read. It was because of the incident with Lagat "all of these checks and cross checks were put in place" as leassons learned to avoid repeating the same mistakes. You are a person of concentrated irony, a strange combination of experience and immaturity, like a sophomoric wisdom still waiting to be formed. You say there is no debate, because you have not been presented with arguments, attempting to conceal that you have also provided nothing of real substance. You even positioned yourself as the opposite of "flat earth", yet your style of propogating myths, reviving debunked accusations, and doubting authorities, while ignoring scientific evidence and providing no arguments of substance, most closely resembles a conspiracy theory, just replacing NASA with IAAF. You started with a (rhetorical?) question about why you are not surprised. The answer it seems is that you do not bother to fully inform yourself, so nothing can surprise you. Some of the rest of us have moved on since Oct. 2003. My guess is you made up your mind, and stopped moving on sometime in the '70s.
Armstronglivs wrote:
You sound like OJ's lawyer and the "glove". Whenever you show up to defend against doping accusations the rule of thumb is to take your response as confirmation of "an adverse finding".
rekrunner wrote:
I suppose the better question is, what is meant by "positive", because anti-doping uses well defined terms like "Adverse Analytical Finding".
When the A-Sample result is an Adverse Analytic Finding, a more accurate layman's description is an "unconfirmed positive".
It looks like you actually didn't bother to read the document that was provided to you as a link, and was also posted on "letsrun" way back in 2003.
Contrary to your statement, the B-sample also returned a "positive", but it just didn't match the A-Sample measurement, therefore was unable to confirm, or corroborate, the A-sample result. Closer re-inspection showed that the A-sample measurement didn't really match the reference bands either for any of the various forms of synthetic EPO.
They concluded that both samples showed signs of degradation due to enzymatic activity, further aggravated by being stored for a lengthy period in a car at 40 deg C, rather than both samples being refrigerated or frozen.
I guess he was lucky smart people were analyzing the results of what was then a fairly new test with some bugs in the process. He was unlucky that the Kenyan Federation released the A-Sample result before it could be corroborated, providing fodder for the uninformed.
Did WADA back then have the amended section of "code 2.2" which allows punishment of an "A" positive with an inconclusive "B" sample? Are you familiar with pro cyclist André Cardoso's case in 2017? The UCI banned him for an AAF of rEPO in his "A" sample though it was not confirmed in his "B" sample:
https://www.velonews.com/2018/07/news/cardoso-epo-case-highlights-inequalities-in-anti-doping-process_471394"The rules of punishment"
"After Cardoso’s B sample returned an inconclusive reading, the UCI still decided to pursue a suspension. In a letter to Cardoso dated August 9, 2017, the UCI explained its decision and referenced WADA code 2.2."
"According to the rule, a governing body can still pursue a ban even if the doping tests fail to produce a positive A and B sample. The rule is a powerful tool in pursuing possible drug cheats, as it allows WADA to ban a rider based on an admission of guilt, the statement of witnesses, or even evidence from police investigations. But the rule also allows governing bodies to throw out the results of an inconclusive B sample and simply reference the results of the A sample."
“Use may be established upon reliable analytical data from the analysis of an A sample (without confirmation from an analysis of a B sample) or from the analysis of a B sample alone where the Anti-Doping Organization provides a satisfactory explanation for the lack of confirmation in the other sample,” reads a clause in the rule."
Armstronglivs wrote:
I know you are but what am I disease wrote:
This is such odd old dude behavior.. Did you miss out on playground squabbles as a child?
I'm going to check if this is some sort of dementia symptom. Just bizarre.
You have such an odd idea of what "old dude behaviour" requires. Mostly it involves the "aged" meekly bearing the vacuous remarks of the adolescent and the juvenile, such as yourself, with your misplaced sense of your own understanding of the world around you.
No. I just expect a modicum of maturity and perhaps the realization that the next crop of old folks(me) are aging much better and remaining viable for longer.
rekrunner wrote:
You are a person of concentrated irony, a strange combination of experience and immaturity, like a sophomoric wisdom still waiting to be formed. .
[/quote]
Dang. This is a genius observation. The second part is going to be a long waiting game. Not sure if he has enough time left.
EPO testing was still a joke in 2003 and clearly unable to catch the likes of El G. But it seems a co-incidence that if this was a random error or false positive that it should happen to one of the 3:26 guys.
I mean why not a sprinter or a hammer thrower? But no, it happens to Bernard Lagat 3:26, who only convicted EPO user Kiprop has gotten close to since.
rekrunner wrote:
The facts are there. Despite your creative suggestion, the adverse finding cannot be meaningly "confirmed" by any response from me, but only be the B-sample, which did not corroborate the A-sample result. I'm not defending against an accusation so much as saying that these accusations died in 2003. It's up to you now if you still want to play ostrich.
In a 2009 interview with "nyvelocity", Michael Ashenden said, regarding the 2004 testing on Lance's 1999 urine samples:
"And you want to make sure that you, for example, weren’t looking at urine that has been contaminated with bacteria, or isn’t what we call unstable urine, where sometimes the bands shift not because of EPO use, but because of some other factors."
These tests of Lance's samples occurred in the 2004-2005 timeframe, fresh after Lagat's failed tests, and Ashenden describes precisely the situation that can be found in the report of Lagat's B-sample tests: The A-sample "bands" shifted, and the B-sample "bands" had shifted even further. That's in the report that you didn't bother to read. It was because of the incident with Lagat "all of these checks and cross checks were put in place" as leassons learned to avoid repeating the same mistakes.
You are a person of concentrated irony, a strange combination of experience and immaturity, like a sophomoric wisdom still waiting to be formed. You say there is no debate, because you have not been presented with arguments, attempting to conceal that you have also provided nothing of real substance. You even positioned yourself as the opposite of "flat earth", yet your style of propogating myths, reviving debunked accusations, and doubting authorities, while ignoring scientific evidence and providing no arguments of substance, most closely resembles a conspiracy theory, just replacing NASA with IAAF.
You started with a (rhetorical?) question about why you are not surprised. The answer it seems is that you do not bother to fully inform yourself, so nothing can surprise you.
Some of the rest of us have moved on since Oct. 2003. My guess is you made up your mind, and stopped moving on sometime in the '70s.
Armstronglivs wrote:
You sound like OJ's lawyer and the "glove". Whenever you show up to defend against doping accusations the rule of thumb is to take your response as confirmation of "an adverse finding".
I have to say OJ's lawyer was more succinct. But the intent is much the same. I also enjoyed your take on my character - "sophomoric wisdom still waiting to be formed" - that's definitely above your usual standard - but the effect is still of a principal lecturing students. Kind of humourless, sententious, and assiduous in your efforts to define reality on your own terms. Indeed, very much like a mediaeval theologian. Heresy will not be tolerated!
Guess I shoulda known why this thread exploded from yesterday.
Popcorn please. Not buttered and I'll take a medium diet coke.
Still haven’t read the report, I see.
whippersnapper wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
You have such an odd idea of what "old dude behaviour" requires. Mostly it involves the "aged" meekly bearing the vacuous remarks of the adolescent and the juvenile, such as yourself, with your misplaced sense of your own understanding of the world around you.
No. I just expect a modicum of maturity and perhaps the realization that the next crop of old folks(me) are aging much better and remaining viable for longer.
Of course you and your like-minded friends don't see it, but "maturity" here is simply acquiescence to a majority view. It amuses me how liberal you boys are in taking pot shots at another commenter as a demonstration of your own "maturity". Quite a hoot.
Gary makes a good point wrote:
rekrunner wrote:
You are a person of concentrated irony, a strange combination of experience and immaturity, like a sophomoric wisdom still waiting to be formed. .
Dang. This is a genius observation. The second part is going to be a long waiting game. Not sure if he has enough time left.[/quote]
Yes, it is good. But one thing we know for sure is that you weren't capable of coming up with it. But as clever as rekrunner sounds on this occasion, you should understand that it is how he sees all of you guys here. Including you. His condescension is nothing if not generously universal.
According to comments in the WADA Code, they always had it: "Comment to Article 2.2: It has always been the case that Use or Attempted Use of a Prohibited Substance or Prohibited Method may be established by any reliable means." Article 2.1 (Presence) requires B-sample confirmation, but Article 2.2 (Use) does not require B-sample confirmation, but still requires "reliable means" to establish "Use". Article 2.2 appears in the WADA Code dated March 2003, which contains the following comment: ""Use" can be proved, for example, through admissions, third party testimony or other evidence." I was not familiar with Cardoso's case.
"A" sample vs "B" sample wrote:
Did WADA back then have the amended section of "code 2.2" which allows punishment of an "A" positive with an inconclusive "B" sample? Are you familiar with pro cyclist André Cardoso's case in 2017? The UCI banned him for an AAF of rEPO in his "A" sample though it was not confirmed in his "B" sample:
...
"The rules of punishment"
"After Cardoso’s B sample returned an inconclusive reading, the UCI still decided to pursue a suspension. In a letter to Cardoso dated August 9, 2017, the UCI explained its decision and referenced WADA code 2.2."
"According to the rule, a governing body can still pursue a ban even if the doping tests fail to produce a positive A and B sample. The rule is a powerful tool in pursuing possible drug cheats, as it allows WADA to ban a rider based on an admission of guilt, the statement of witnesses, or even evidence from police investigations. But the rule also allows governing bodies to throw out the results of an inconclusive B sample and simply reference the results of the A sample."
“Use may be established upon reliable analytical data from the analysis of an A sample (without confirmation from an analysis of a B sample) or from the analysis of a B sample alone where the Anti-Doping Organization provides a satisfactory explanation for the lack of confirmation in the other sample,” reads a clause in the rule."
Armstronglivs wrote:
Gary makes a good point wrote:
Dang. This is a genius observation. The second part is going to be a long waiting game. Not sure if he has enough time left.
Yes, it is good. But one thing we know for sure is that you weren't capable of coming up with it. But as clever as rekrunner sounds on this occasion, you should understand that it is how he sees all of you guys here. Including you. His condescension is nothing if not generously universal.[/quote]
We don't know for sure. I am a physical genius currently but just getting better every day.
"no plans yet" = "sub 4 in December"
He can do it!!!
Gary makes a good point wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
Dang. This is a genius observation. The second part is going to be a long waiting game. Not sure if he has enough time left.
Yes, it is good. But one thing we know for sure is that you weren't capable of coming up with it. But as clever as rekrunner sounds on this occasion, you should understand that it is how he sees all of you guys here. Including you. His condescension is nothing if not generously universal.
We don't know for sure. I am a physical genius currently but just getting better every day.[/quote]
Yes, we do know for sure. You've just proven it. But conceit is your middle name.