109 clenbuterol positives in U17 football WC

[Dr. Maserati]

you are not only incapable of admitting being wrong - which you had several clear opportunities here - you as i showed several times will resort to inventions, pedantry and obfuscation to hide and evade. these tricks of yours were amply exposed yesterday by stingray. you are getting another dose today

Ah, Stingray - just like you, couldn't admit they made a mistake and move on - he did leave quickly though.

wada ignoring the real problems in the rules, as i tryied to point out, was my only objection. their failure to change the rule in the face of so many withdrawn cases only illustrates my point you so stubbornly fail to see.

They haven't ignored it - they decided to not put in a threshold and look at it case by case, which is the correct thing to do.
Unless there is an upsurge in clen incidents in countries besides China or Mexico I would expect them to retain that position.

you read the challenge, now go and provide evidence that you did not invent a story about the origin of contador's meat.

You said you had asked me earlier - i accuse you of making up a story about the origin of contador's meat..

What did I say about the 'origin' of the meat beside Spain/France and what did you ask me?

 

[python]

clearly i will not fall for more of you strawmen questions. this cheap trick is well known to this forum. if you are incapable of finding your own response and a clear challenge to your unsupported statements, you are playing games.

but i will list a short list of the things you utterly failed either to back up or obfuscated:

you failed to provide specific examples of where my outline of wada rules on clen was inaccurate.

you failed to understand that mielsen and colo where in essentially identical conditions in mexico yet under the current wada rules one got a shaft and another is fully acquitted.

you accused me of a strawmen diverting a discussion to contador yet failed to see your own cheap stramen because I provided clear evidence of pleading for focusing on the rules, not contador

You failed to back up your statement to publicus about the origin of contador’s meat which i beg you to back up and you, in the post above pretend to not understanding it.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

clearly i will not fall for more of you strawmen questions. this cheap trick is well known to this forum. if you are incapable of finding your own response and a clear challenge to your unsupported statements, you are playing games.

The "clear challenge" that I asked you to show and you ignored - until you stuck it in the bottom of this post, which I will get to.

but i will list a short list of the things you utterly failed either to back up or obfuscated:

Please do - and don't forget to say I am pedantic and engaged in obfuscation when I answer them...again.

you failed to provide specific examples of where my outline of wada rules on clen was inaccurate.

I specifically mentioned (ii) & to lesser extent (iii).

you failed to understand that mielsen and colo where in essentially identical conditions in mexico yet under the current wada rules one got a shaft and another is fully acquitted.

Which was your (ii) point, strict liability.
They were caught - and it was strict why weren't they just hit with 2 year bans?

Because bringing in Clen regulations or whatever is a strawman.
The only rules that needs to be considered once it is shown from there B sample - "No Fault or Negligence" or "No Significant fault or Negligence".

you accused me of a strawmen diverting a discussion to contador yet failed to see your own cheap stramen because I provided clear evidence of pleading for focusing on the rules, not contador

And I apologized.
But lets be clear - crispy clear - you say you want to "focus" on the rules which ignore the real issues regarding their interpretation.

You failed to back up your statement to publics about the origin of contador’s meat which i beg you to back up and you, in the post above pretend to not understanding it.

Finally.
My statement to 'publicus' (??) - which would be the one posted below?

Of course they have - they all have, they ate contaminated meat in either China or Mexico.

Contador claims he ate meat in France, that it came from Spain and that they have a receipt to show this.
He has offered 'proof' that he ate meat from a country that does not have a problem with Clenbuterol like Mexico or Spain.

I wasn't pretending to not understand your point, quite frankly I still don't - what are you accusing me of making up?

 

[python]

The "clear challenge" that I asked you to show and you ignored - until you stuck it in the bottom of this post, which I will get to

only a disingenuous gamer will fail so many clear requests.

Please do - and don't forget to say I am pedantic and engaged in obfuscation when I answer them...again.

you did not answer anything. and yes you obfuscating because, as i already showed, you are still pretending not to see the difference in colo and nielsen treatment and asking irrelevant question about the clear and well known outcome - one is shafted, another walks free.

They were caught - and it was strict why weren't they just hit with 2 year bans?

you are now resorting to a worn out trick you accuse other of - asking questions you know answers to and which are utterly irrelevant. both, colo and nielsen should be free, if the wada rules were applied fairly. i repeat, both were in identical conditions under the same rules. somehow this simplicity gets lost on you. that's why you are deserve the obfuscating tag. i don't believe you are that thick.

And I apologized.

if you did it's accepted. but you need to point it as if i sew it it would be immediately accepted.

But lets be clear - crispy clear - you say you want to "focus" on the rules which ignore the real issues regarding their interpretation.

as i said many times - good rules should not allow for diametrically opposing outcomes and should not depend on the outdated wada standard for labs. again, you fail to see a simple point.

Finally.
My statement to 'publicus' (??) - which would be the one posted below?
I wasn't pretending to not understand your point, quite frankly I still don't - what are you accusing me of making up?

again, i don't believe you suddenly became so inept. looks like conveniently so.

http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showpost.php?p=710143&postcount=14

He has offered 'proof' that he ate meat from a country that does not have a problem with Clenbuterol like Mexico or Spain.

provide evidence. w/o evidence this is a clearly false statement.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

only a disingenuous gamer will fail so many clear requests.

There was nothing clear in your "requests" - nothing.

you did not answer anything. and yes you obfuscating because, as i already showed, you are still pretending not to see the difference in colo and nielsen treatment and asking irrelevant question about the clear and well known outcome - one is shafted, another walks free.
you are now resorting to a worn out trick you accuse other of - asking questions you know answers to and which are utterly irrelevant. both, colo and nielsen should be free, if the wada rules were applied fairly. i repeat, both were in identical conditions under the same rules. somehow this simplicity gets lost on you. that's why you are deserve the obfuscating tag. i don't believe you are that thick.

Yes and no.
I see your point but IMO both should have been suspended as per the same rule.

Nielsen benefited from the fact that Cobo had been caught in the same place at the same time.
Even then WADA appealed Nielsens verdict and quite rightly dropped it.

if you did it's accepted. but you need to point it as if i sew it it would be immediately accepted.

http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showpost.php?p=710402&postcount=49]This post[/URL] - where I said:

"Unlike you I have no problem admitting when I am wrong - so sure, you did highlight that, although you went on and discussed Contador in a subsequent post"

Just to be clear, you made reference that it was not about Contador, so i apologise for suggesting that it was.

as i said many times - good rules should not allow for diametrically opposing outcomes and should not depend on the outdated wada standard for labs. again, you fail to see a simple point.

This is the whole point the rules you keep bringing up are irrelevant.
You have suggested (even above) that it is bad rules that is at fault - it isn't.

It has nothing to do with Clenbuterol, strict liability, lax clen detection etc - Nielsen, Cobo, Contador - they were all caught with Clen.

The only thing up for discussion is how it entered their system and whether they have "No (significant) fault or negligence".

 

[Dr. Maserati]

I decided to answer this next part separately.

Quite frankly I have no idea what you are on about.

.........
again, i don't believe you suddenly became so inept. looks like conveniently so.

http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showpost.php?p=710143&postcount=14
provide evidence. w/o evidence this is a clearly false statement.

I just want to be clear - you are accusing me of making this part up?

He has offered 'proof' that he ate meat from a country that does not have a problem with Clenbuterol like Mexico or Spain.

If so - here you go.
Astana have receipt for Contador's steak says cook

Contador spokesman says they have mystery meat’s receipt

 

[python]

There was nothing clear in your "requests" - nothing.

another indication of a deliberated ignorance.

somehow brodeal easily picked up on the obvious obfuscation. you seem increasingly rely on to win internet arguments. you failed too publicly in the space of just 2 days.

I see your point but IMO both should have been suspended as per the same rule.

if you saw my point and were consistent with your own utterances about mexico and china, you would not put yes and no. it's your other pattern you've used too many times when saying simple 'yes' to an obvious point is gonna hurt your internet ego and tantamount to losing on facts in public.

Nielsen benefited from the fact that Cobo had been caught in the same place at the same time

. again, you some how conveniently skipping the simple point made many times that colo did not benefit whilst nielsen did even though both sat across the same table eating the contaminated meat on the same day. a classic deliberate obfuscation.

http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showpost.php?p=710402&postcount=49]This post[/URL] - where I said:
Just to be clear, you made reference that it was not about Contador, so i apologise for suggesting that it was.

there is no word 'i apologize or sorry whatever' in your link. but i do see you accusing me of being incapable of admitting something you failed to state simply without counter accusations that you not me set up a stramen. so again, i see your ego is too large to simply acknowledge own failure without counter digs.

This is the whole point the rules you keep bringing up are irrelevant.
You have suggested (even above) that it is bad rules that is at fault - it isn't.

It has nothing to do with Clenbuterol, strict liability, lax clen detection etc - Nielsen, Cobo, Contador - they were all caught with Clen.

The only thing up for discussion is how it entered their system and whether they have "No (significant) fault or negligence".

this whole statement tells me that i may need to start believing your confusion is genuine. to state 'the only thing up for discussion is ...' after so many examples is a true confusion and a fundamental misunderstanding of the rules and the great grey areas in them as written. i did overestimate you.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

another indication of a deliberated ignorance.

somehow brodeal easily picked up on the obvious obfuscation. you seem increasingly rely on to win internet arguments. you failed too publicly in the space of just 2 days.

You accuse me of "deliberated ignorance" and "obfuscation" by completely misrepresenting what Brodeal said? Ok.

a
if you saw my point and were consistent with your own utterances about mexico and china, you would not put yes and no. it's your other pattern you've used too many times when saying simple 'yes' to an obvious point is gonna hurt your internet ego and tantamount to losing on facts in public.

. again, you some how conveniently skipping the simple point made many times that colo did not benefit whilst nielsen did even though both sat across the same table eating the contaminated meat on the same day. a classic deliberate obfuscation.


there is no word 'i apologize or sorry whatever' in your link. but i do see you accusing me of being incapable of admitting something you failed to state simply without counter accusations that you not me set up a stramen. so again, i see your ego is too large to simply acknowledge own failure without counter digs.


this whole statement tells me that i may need to start believing your confusion is genuine. to state 'the only thing up for discussion is ...' after so many examples is a true confusion and a fundamental misunderstanding of the rules and the great grey areas in them as written. i did overestimate you.

Guess what - you're right.
I am confused - truly confused - not with the rules or anything about Contador.
I am just confused at your arguments and what you are attempting to say.

And to show that it isn't just about me winning - guess what, you win.
Yes, you're the winner - heartfelt congrats and all that, I hope you're happy, enjoy this special moment, you deserved it etc etc.

 

[python]

You accuse me of "deliberated ignorance" and "obfuscation" by completely misrepresenting what Brodeal said? Ok.

please, provide evidence. brodeal is around he'll speak for himself. to me it was clear brodeal ridiculed you after harping about 'my summary' as being made up and inaccurate. are you again claiming amnesia about your own dozen or so posts ?

No one can even post a summary of rules and what they believe the effective consequences will be because people are too freakin' stupid to figure out that it is not a direct quote from WADA rules,

another public 'naked pants down' doc ]Guess what - you're right.
I am confused - truly confused [/QUOTE] that's not my fault doc as it's you who needs to do some home work. this stuff was my livelihood for too many years to allow you to take cheap shots at me.

... you win.

no doc, again borrowing your own words, you lost, i did not win. again, quoting you, you lost b/c you could not back up your statements you so arrogantly demanded of others on so many occasions. but i will be back if you invite me

 

[BroDeal]

The sad thing about this is that Python posted a good list of absurdities that result from the current rules and how they are enforced, and what could have been an interesting topic has been buried by an avalanche of endless pedantry.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

please, provide evidence. brodeal is around he'll speak for himself. to me it was clear brodeal ridiculed you after harping about 'my summary' as being made up and inaccurate. are you again claiming amnesia about your own dozen or so posts ?
another public 'naked pants down' doc

that's not my fault doc as it's you who needs to do some home work. this stuff was my livelihood for too many years to allow you to take cheap shots at me.
no doc, again borrowing your own words, you lost, i did not win. again, quoting you, you lost b/c you could not back up your statements you so arrogantly demanded of others on so many occasions. but i will be back if you invite me

To the highlighted re Brodeal -
No, you put that in to say he even claimed obfuscation about your "requests" (the one where I made something up and you clearly and publicly asked me to show..... about 2 pages later).


After that I don't care - your "rules" were made up - which is why I objected, because now you even admit it was your "livelihood for too many years".
You - of all people should have known better.

 

[python]

The sad thing about this is that Python posted a good list of absurdities that result from the current rules and how they are enforced, and what could have been an interesting topic has been buried by an avalanche by endless pedantry.

appreciate you speaking up, brodeal, but it's far-far more than pedantry.

maserati has placed many excellent, thoughtful posts and a truly outstanding humour. there is no understatement in saying he's a very popular poster. and he thoroughly deserved it.

at the same time, he showed a tendency for 'polite bullying' in the hope of outlasting a user he takes a variance to...this i saw many times but always ignored b/c it was not about the issues i care deeply...

this stuff is different. i care very much about the shyte b/c it was my livelihood.... wada is in a difficult position, i understand it, but it's also, in my honest opinion, disingenuous, too political and inconsistent.

having an honest discussion, as you noted, was torpedoed by the doc's cheap shots.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

The sad thing about this is that Python posted a good list of absurdities that result from the current rules and how they are enforced, and what could have been an interesting topic has been buried by an avalanche of endless pedantry.

Agree that it is interesting
But the points Python made are not the dilemma or inaccuracies in rules or system and suggesting WADA is at fault is quite wrong.

Merckx Index actually wrote a couple of very good posts here that address that.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

appreciate you speaking up, brodeal, but it's far-far more than pedantry.

maserati has placed many excellent, thoughtful posts and a truly outstanding humour. there is no understatement in saying he's a very popular poster. and he thoroughly deserved it.

at the same time, he showed a tendency for 'polite bullying' in the hope of outlasting a user he takes a variance to...this i saw many times but always ignored b/c it was not about the issues i care deeply...

this stuff is different. i care very much about the shyte b/c it was my livelihood.... wada is in a difficult position, i understand it, but it's also, in my honest opinion, disingenuous, too political and inconsistent.

having an honest discussion, as you noted, was torpedoed by the doc's cheap shots.

They are not cheap shots.
I think the reason you so robustly defended your points is because I was too accurate. (and I'll be honest it took me by suprise)

You claim that it was your livelihood and I don't doubt that as you have a great understanding of all elements in this, including the political element.

That is why I objected to the "summary" - people read your position and will happily take it because you know this stuff well.

 

[Spider1964]

Geebus.. thought I'd stumbled across Frank v CoachFergie in "The importance of crank length to a cyclist" thread???

Hey Python and Doc... Ya couldn't just agree to disagree could Ya?

 

[python]

Agree that it is interesting
But the points Python made are not the dilemma or inaccuracies in rules or system and suggesting WADA is at fault is quite wrong.

Merckx Index actually wrote a couple of very good posts here that address that.

you said you lost, didn't you ? why don't you go back lick your wounds and do some very much needed home work. will you ?

then, come back and we'll have another discussion, and if your hurt ego allowes it, it may be productive

as it stands, you accused me of misinterpreting brodeal..well, brodeal spoke up - as expected you put an egg on your face (well, what else is new).

brodeal confirmed you've misrepresented him. your belated appeals to another posters comments could have been helpfull, if you chose to refer to them at the time, in stead of constant obfuscation which failed.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

I'll answer this in 2 parts:

you said you lost, didn't you ? why don't you go back lick your wounds and do some very much needed home work. will you ?

then, come back and we'll have another discussion, and if your hurt ego allowes it, it may be productive

as it stands, you accused me of misinterpreting brodeal..well, brodeal spoke up - as expected you put an egg on your face (well, what else is new).

brodeal confirmed you've misrepresented him. your belated appeals to another posters comments could have been helpfull, if you chose to refer to them at the time, in stead of constant obfuscation which failed.

Yes - you misrepresented Brodeal - he was not discussing what you claim.
Where did Brodeal confirm that I misrepresented him?
I seriously doubt you want to go misrepresenting them.

Here is the exchange:

Originally Posted by Dr. Maserati
The "clear challenge" that I asked you to show and you ignored - until you stuck it in the bottom of this post, which I will get to

only a disingenuous gamer will fail so many clear requests.

There was nothing clear in your "requests" - nothing.

another indication of a deliberated ignorance.

somehow brodeal easily picked up on the obvious obfuscation. you seem increasingly rely on to win internet arguments. you failed too publicly in the space of just 2 days.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

you said you lost, didn't you ? why don't you go back lick your wounds and do some very much needed home work. will you ?

then, come back and we'll have another discussion, and if your hurt ego allowes it, it may be productive

as it stands, you accused me of misinterpreting brodeal..well, brodeal spoke up - as expected you put an egg on your face (well, what else is new).

brodeal confirmed you've misrepresented him. your belated appeals to another posters comments could have been helpfull, if you chose to refer to them at the time, in stead of constant obfuscation which failed.

Then teach me.

Give me some homework - I actually am here to learn.

And quite seriously, nothing productive comes of loose interpretations.
You do know your stuff on all of this so above all people you should be the one introduce the correct rules, wording and linking of same to stimulate productive discussion.

 

[Merckx index]

The sad thing about this is that Python posted a good list of absurdities that result from the current rules and how they are enforced, and what could have been an interesting topic has been buried by an avalanche of endless pedantry.

It could have been a very interesting topic if Python had not taken his usual “I know better than anyone else” attitude. If he had actually been willing to debate the topic rather than close it off. Let’s try again:

Absurdity no. 1: Colo vs. Nielson. Yes, I agree that Colo got shafted—or maybe he caught a break and Nielson caught an even bigger break. We really don’t know for sure, do we? The nub of the problem, ironically, is that there is not, as Python claimed in his misleading summary, an absolute zero tolerance rule. If there were, this problem couldn’t have arisen, could it have? WADA rules do make it possible for athletes to get off. So the problem is an uncertainty over what is no significant fault and what is no fault. If you can’t see that, if you really think Python was advancing the discussion by saying one molecule of CB is not allowed, then I have to conclude what buried the interesting topic was something other than pedantry.

Anyone want to propose a solution to this? It seems to me that WADA already has. Taking it case by case, as Mas said, with athletes who test positive in countries like Mexico and China probably getting off, particularly if they test in numbers. For now. In the longer term, maybe meat will be treated like a supplement—even if you prove it was contaminated, it was your fault for not being careful in that situation. Maybe teams that want to eat meat will have to make arrangements with WADA to have samples taken and if necessary tested later. Whatever they do, I think it’s quite unlikely a situation like Colo vs. Nielson will happen again. It has been instructive.

Absurdity no. 2: Riders get busted by Germany but walk in Paris. This is a conceivable scenario, but we have no evidence that it has happened yet. We are talking about hypothetical false negatives, when in fact the pro peloton is loaded with false negatives, and has been for many, many years. I don’t recall anyone here complaining about all the problems with the EPO test, where rider A can have more synthetic EPO in his urine than rider B, yet A tests negative and B positive. Nor the different criteria that apply in the T-test, to the point where Floyd might possibly have walked if his samples had been analyzed by another lab. Not to mention the Ashenden-documented problems with the passport, unable to identify many if not most cases of blood doping.

Given that not all labs can apparently afford the most sensitive detection, what do you propose? That all samples be shipped to Germany for analysis? I don’t think they can handle them all, can they? That the German lab shut down and let the old standards apply more or less uniformly? That the lab not try to detect CB below levels that other labs can’t detect? Is the idea that if some riders might be getting away with doping, we should let them all off? Is that really a better way to approach the situation than to be glad that at least some riders are being caught?

Absurdity no. 3: Tablemates are not tested. So make a suggestion. Do you think every time athletes sit down for dinner together, everyone should be tested afterwards? Kind of expensive, isn’t it? And if an athlete should want to avoid testing, he just eats somewhere else, or orders the vegetarian special? As I said above, one possibility is storing a sample of meat for possible testing later. It seems to me that would be easier, cheaper, and a more certain way of establishing what was going on than taking samples of everyone at the table and storing them for possible later testing.

 

[python]

meserati, are you really that impenetrable that you can't accept your position was thoroughly and publicly debunked and you even said you accepted it yet continuing to have the last word. it wont happen. does brodeal really need to put to you that

The sad thing about this is that Python posted a good list of absurdities that result from the current rules and how they are enforced, and what could have been an interesting topic has been buried by an avalanche of endless pedantry.

you were politely told of being full of sh..?

deal with it. if you need a list of homework, pm me, it's hardly needed to exposed people to the additional strains of your ego

 

[Dr. Maserati]

meserati, are you really that impenetrable that you can't accept your position was thoroughly and publicly debunked and you even said you accepted it yet continuing to have the last word. it wont happen. does brodeal really need to put to you that



you were politely told of being full of sh..?

deal with it. if you need a list of homework, pm me, it's hardly needed to exposed people to the additional strains of your ego

This is what you said:

brodeal confirmed you've misrepresented him.

Nothing in the above says that.

If you want me to stop responding to your posts where you make stuff up - then stop making stuff up.

You want to discuss the thread subject, then we can roll on that too.

 

[python]

merxcks index, we've seen your 'science' before.

python's 'absolute zero tolerance' is not misleading at all. it's a simple restatement of wada's well known policy of zero tolerance by refusing to consider a threshold.

so, by a deliberate misrepresentation of a simple fact of wada policy as 'python's' you have confirmed to me what I have suspected for a long time - and you may have noticed it, your attempts at seeking for my feedback, both privately and publicly, to your science fiction stories, wont be heeded. b/c imho, you seek internet response and popularity at the expense of rigorous and responsible science.

 

[ChrisE]

The sad thing about this is that Python posted a good list of absurdities that result from the current rules and how they are enforced, and what could have been an interesting topic has been buried by an avalanche of endless pedantry.

Agreed. I believe I will call in and sign up for a lobotomy tomorrow because I am actually agreeing with python.

This zero threshold and leaving things "up to interpretation case by case" is a bunch of BS.

 

[python]

This is what you said:

Nothing in the above says that.

If you want me to stop responding to your posts where you make stuff up - then stop making stuff up.

You want to discuss the thread subject, then we can roll on that too.

jeez, you still owe me a back up on the stuff you made up, admitted to being denuded, and now you continue to assert your usual cheap tricks.

i don't want anything from you other then respecting your own word which apparently means very little to you. it was another doc's trick at winning the internets. wont work.

please back up your false statements, you requested me to re-state, which i obliged, about the origin of contador's meat.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

jeez, you still owe me a back up on the stuff you made up, admitted to being denuded, and now you continue to assert your usual cheap tricks.

i don't want anything from you other then respecting your own word which apparently means very little to you. it was another doc's trick at winning the internets. wont work.

please back up your false statements, you requested me to re-state, which i obliged, about the origin of contador's meat.

The one I already answered hours ago?

Here is the link to it.
http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showpost.php?p=710557&postcount=56