109 clenbuterol positives in U17 football WC

[indurain666]

apparently there is a rule (i failed to find in wada code) that you have to eat with your mates but they don't have to test them....

What?

If your interpretation of WADA rules is as good as your interpretation of English grammar rules....

 

[python]

You wrote that points (i), (ii), (iii) are part of their "crispy clear regulations".




Unless they are quotes from the WADA code than you made it up to suit your arguement.

doc, this is an obfuscation on your part.

it was rather clear that my 3 points were summaries of the rules governing clen. i even made a point of not overloading the summary with too much technical info and definitions because it would deflect some readers from following the outline of that post. besides the clen-governing wada rules are spread over many documents and dozens of pages and a brief summary makes sense.

your reference of it being 'made up' by me, including the dismissive context of the remark

Don't take Pythons made up rules at face value

were rather obvious.

once again, i challenge you to provide evidence where my 3 summary points were factually inaccurate.

if you can't you are obfuscation and hiding behind a clear piece of pedantry.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

all above is pretty irrelevant.

Then why ask me to show you something you wrote?

the examples given remain valid and they are based on the same wada rules that wada refuses to amend.

both colo and nielsen tested on the same day and ate contaminated meat in the same restaurant in mexico.

one is free another is punished on the basis of the same wada rules.

not seeing the inadequacy of the situation is an example of wada rules problem is lame.

They were both heard under the same rule and both found guilty of having Clen in their system.

The difference was that the Danes ruled that Nielsen had "No Fault or Negligence" while CONI served Cobo with "No Significant Fault or Negligence".

WADA actually appealed the Nielsen decision - but then withdrew it, which shows that they judge "fault" on a case by case basis.

 

[python]

Then why ask me to show you something you wrote?




They were both heard under the same rule and both found guilty of having Clen in their system.

The difference was that the Danes ruled that Nielsen had "No Fault or Negligence" while CONI served Cobo with "No Significant Fault or Negligence".

WADA actually appealed the Nielsen decision - but then withdrew it, which shows that they judge "fault" on a case by case basis.

you seem to fail to see the main point - and i am as aware of the 2 cases as anyone - 2 bike riders who were tested on the same day, ate in the same restaurant on the same day - received different treatmet b/c the rules allow almost diametrically opposing interpretations of the identical situation the 2 riders were in. an italian - a strict version, and a danish one - the liberal version.

i see a problem with the rule - if such inaquality is possible.

either both doped and deserve an equal punishment or both should go free as is likely the case.

Then why ask me to show you something you wrote?

another piece of obfuscation on your part, doc.

i asked you in the specif post to provide evidence that my definitions were made up.

why? because taking your usual approach i want to verify if your statement makes sense.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

doc, this is an obfuscation on your part.

it was rather clear that my 3 points were summaries of the rules governing clen. i even made a point of not overloading the summary with too much technical info and definitions because it would deflect some readers from following the outline of that post. besides the clen-governing wada rules are spread over many documents and dozens of pages and a brief summary makes sense.

your reference of it being 'made up' by me, including the dismissive context of the remark

were rather obvious.

once again, i challenge you to provide evidence where my 3 summary points were factually inaccurate.

if you can't you are obfuscation and hiding behind a clear piece of pedantry.

Yet you never said they were summaries, in fact you said the rules were "crispy clear".
Your "summary" number (ii) of Strict Liability is completely inaccurate and to a lesser extent your point (iii) on the testing.

I have enough faith in other posters to make their own conclusions and would rather "overload" them with correct information then "summarize" clear inaccuracies - if thats pedantry, then thats fine by me.

 

[Dancing On The Pedals]

As for whether he walks or not, I hope he does (yes I'm a bit of a fanboy) but it will be interesting to see what proof his defence have that he didn't deliberately take Clen.

An article I read this morning about this story - mainly talks about Football being in the Dark ages as far as dope control is concerned... http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/fo...ll-to-feel-the-heat-and-share-the-burden.html

But I found this para particularly interesting;
"When Alberto Contador provided a positive sample of clenbuterol at the 2009 Tour de France so minisucle that even the testers themselves have questioned whether it is of any significance – he was automatically hung drawn and quartered by many sections of the world's media. A witch hunt in all but name. Perhaps one or two out there are now reconsidering their position?"

I know the amount found in his system was tiny, but wondered if anyone had heard more about the testers themselves questioning the results?

 

[python]

Yet you never said they were summaries,

if you did not recognize the 3 points as summaries and need to be told these were summaries ...after so many post in the clinic, you probably need to do some home work and then come back debating.

i repeat, i challenge you to provide evidence where my summary was incorrect and why you called it 'made up'

 

[Dr. Maserati]

you seem to fail to see the main point - and i am as aware of the 2 cases as anyone - 2 bike riders who were tested on the same day, ate in the same restaurant on the same day - received different treatmet b/c the rules allow almost diametrically opposing interpretations of the identical situation the 2 riders were in. an italian - a strict version, and a danish one - the liberal version.

i see a problem with the rule - if such inaquality is possible.

either both doped and deserve an equal punishment or both should go free as is likely the case.

So they both got different treatment - what happened the summary of your "strict liability" argument:

(ii) unwavering adherence to the principle of strict liability, which essentially means unless an athlete can produce a meat sample with clen, he’s presumed guilty

....doesn't sound very strict to me.

if you did not recognize the 3 points as summaries and need to be told these were summaries ...after so many post in the clinic, you probably need to do some home work and then come back debating.

i repeat, i challenge you to provide evidence where my summary was incorrect and why you called it 'made up'

They are made up.
You admit that when you say it is a "summary" - my objection is that it is a very biased summary and is inaccurate.

The next poster after your post picked up on it and made some irrelevant point about dogs?
Either you want to talk about the specifics or we can all start making up interpretations on made up rules.

 

[python]

Either you want to talk about the specifics or we can all start making up interpretations on made up rules.

i've been bagging you in a number of posts to provide the specifics, specific words in the code against my statements - where i was inaccurate or in the substance of what i wrote.

your response - more dodging and obfuscation and misinterpreting the next poster who was advocating a shared responsibility with fifa.

 

[BroDeal]

Jeebus! 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, so much so that they start harping on a member because of it in post after post. What's next? Page after page of d-bags picking apart grammar and punctuation? Maybe we should all sit around and exchange pieces of googled articles.

 

[python]

Jeebus! No one can even post a summary of rules and what they believe the effective consequences will be because people are too freakin' stupid

i dont think doc mas is stupid. winning internet arguments is his goal even if he makes himself look stupid...

What's next?

let's see how much more embarrassment can dr mass take...

 

[Dr. Maserati]

i've been bagging you in a number of posts to provide the specifics, specific words in the code against my statements - where i was inaccurate or in the substance of what i wrote.

your response - more dodging and obfuscation and misinterpreting the next poster who was advocating a shared responsibility with fifa.

I quoted your posts, pointed to the relevant 'summaries' - I cannot be more specific than that.

Jeebus! 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, so much so that they start harping on a member because of it in post after post. What's next? Page after page of d-bags picking apart grammar and punctuation? Maybe we should all sit around and exchange pieces of googled articles.

I have no problem if someone summarizes the rules - but to put in loose and inaccurate interpretations is disingenuous.

 

[Beech Mtn]

Remember this article where Contador's team worked with the Basque government to trace the origin of the meat Contador ate, and the most likely farm was one that had been sanctioned for using clenbuterol on its animals in the past?

De tres de los orígenes posibles, «según el Gobierno Vasco, dos eran absolutamente improbables por la razones argüidas en las alegaciones principales, siendo la única probable la empresa que fue sancionada en el año 2000 por engordar ganado precisamente con clembuterol».

Also, remember the articles about the Spanish government shutting down that slaughterhouse for having contaminated meat/animals, and not following official protocols?

(I really wish The Swordsman were still with us. He would have been all over this story. He had links to all kinds of info that never really made it into the anglophone press.)

 

[BroDeal]

i dont think doc mas is stupid. winning internet arguments is his goal even if he makes himself look stupid...

It's being argumentative for the sake of being argumentative and then beating the non-issue like a dead horse until everyone else avoids the thread.

 

[Merckx index]

Jeebus! 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, so much so that they start harping on a member because of it in post after post. What's next? Page after page of d-bags picking apart grammar and punctuation? Maybe we should all sit around and exchange pieces of googled articles.

I don't think this is nit-picking. Python made three points that he said were summaries of WADA rules. But there is no conceivable summary of the rules that says there is absolute, no exceptions possible, strict liability. In fact, Python's (ii) contradicts (i). (i) says not a molecule is allowed, while (ii) says CB is allowed if the athlete can produce the meat sample.

But it's not just producing a meat sample that allows you the possibility to get off. If that were all that was allowed, Python himself back in March would not have fallen all over himself praising Bert's lawyers for taking a strategy aimed at showing Bert had no liability. His team's argument was not that he had produced the meat; it was that the possibility of contaminated meat in Spain was so small. Python--correctly--pointed out that they were using that fact to show that IF Bert did eat contaminated meat, he was not at fault. I sure didn't hear Python complaining then, though, about how this move conflicted with WADA rules or their summaries. The rules were quoted in one of the Clinic threads back then, I think maybe by GJB or the late swordsman, and NOBODY in this forum suggested that Bert's strategy was against the rules.

Python's point (iii) says "laxed" standard. It is not "laxed", it is uneven, because through no fault of their own, not all labs have equipment with the same sensitivity. Even if they did, there is precedent for WADA allowing flexibility in setting standards, e.g., in the T test, where the number of substances and the degree of o/oo can vary. This flexibility is in the rules.

I think we can all agree that Nielson vs. Colo is an abomination, but is that really because WADA people are blind or stupid? They saw that they could not make a good case against Nielson. The only way they could have produced fairness is by appealing Colo's suspension, but by the time they appreciated that maybe they should, he had already begun serving it, and would have finished, anyway, by the time of the hearing.

Yes, Italy and Denmark interpreted the same rules differently. It happens all the time in our legal system. This is the price we pay for having some human input into decisions.

 

[Hugh Januss]

i dont think doc mas is stupid. winning internet arguments is his goal even if he makes himself look stupid...

let's see how much more embarrassment can dr mass take...

If he is feeling any more embarrassed than you, chances are he is just more self aware.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

It's being argumentative for the sake of being argumentative and then beating the non-issue like a dead horse until everyone else avoids the thread.

I pointed out that 'Pythons' rules were made up, the only reason it went any further is because they objected, even though they admit they are 'summaries'.
His points were strawmen, with little relevance to the Contador case.

 

[python]

I quoted your posts, pointed to the relevant 'summaries' - I cannot be more specific than that.

you did not. you selected a statement about strict liability, perverted it and tried to obfuscate the simple point i made about the wild differences in treatment nielsen and colo received for essentially identical circumstances. repeat for you: the principle written in the wada rules did not prevent almost diametrically opposed interpretation of the 2 riders - same day tested, same restaurant, same lab.

your inability of accepting the simple fact points very clearly that you either need more home work, or more likely, intrenched yourself b/c you cornered yourself.

I have no problem if someone summarizes the rules - but to put in loose and inaccurate interpretations is disingenuous.

jeez, once again, i ask you to point where it was inaccurate side by side compared to wada's own text.

otoh, i challenged you earlier - openly and publicly - that you, dr maserati who frequently accused users of making stuff up and demanding evidence - i accuse you of making up a story about the origin of contador's meat.

you conveniently skipped it

i repeat the challenge, please provide evidence that contador's defense excluded foreign origin of his meat. did you make it up ?

 

[Dr. Maserati]

i dont think doc mas is stupid. winning internet arguments is his goal even if he makes himself look stupid...

let's see how much more embarrassment can dr mass take...

If I was interested in 'winning' then I will start making my way to the top step of the podium because when you have to resort to ad hominens it shows there is little substance to your points.

I actually don't think you are stupid - which is why I objected to your summary. You above most people here know both the rules and the subsequent cases to realize that the summary you offered was very slanted.

 

[Publicus]

i doubt there is a single user who hasn't stated or repeated his/her opinion about contador doping and the duration of his ban but - back to my analysis described in the post above - does any one think wada rules about clen are messy ?

you test in cologne and you are a doper. same urine in paris or turkey and you walk.

you have a dinner on the same day in the same restaurant (nielsen vs colo) and one is an accursed doper and another a free man.

you go race and the dope collectors test you but not your mates who ate with you at the same table - you are a doper and they are not because it's apparently there is a rule (i failed to find in wada code) that you have to eat with your mates but they don't have to test them....

is the absurdity sinking ?

It is pretty ridiculous if you ask me. At a minimum all labs should be using the same standard and one lab should be use for the same event. There needs to be some uniformity around the testing.

 

[python]

His points were strawmen, with little relevance to the Contador case.

you just got caught with your pants down doc, because you crudely just used a strawmen.

i specifically pleaded to keep the focus away from contador story.

i know that the majority want to connect the event to contador .

this is understandable, but i keep trying to point to another connection - the more important one - to wada rules covering clen doping

another thing you made up. what's next ? how much more you can invent ?

 

[Publicus]

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.

No, they haven't. They've claimed they tested positive because they ate contaminated meat in China or Mexico, but none of them, to my knowledge, have produced the contaimated meat they purportedly ate.

As for Contador, I don't think he can prove that he ate contaminated meat since that is impossible without the actual piece of meat consummed (and why none of the others could EVER prove they ate contaminated meat either), but that, like them, he eliminates all of the other possible ways it got into his body (i.e., doping).

 

[python]

It is pretty ridiculous if you ask me. At a minimum all labs should be using the same standard and one lab should be use for the same event. There needs to be some uniformity around the testing.

yep.

and people like dr. mas who continually make stuff up and yet can not accept the simplicity of the fact that the current wada standard for own labs breeds problems, these people pretend more and more. stay tuned...

 

[Dr. Maserati]

you just got caught with your pants down doc, because you crudely just used a strawmen.

i specifically pleaded to keep the focus away from contador story.

another thing you made up. what's next ? how much more you can invent ?

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.

yep.

and people like dr. mas who continually make stuff up and yet can not accept the simplicity of the fact that the current wada standard for own labs breeds problems, these people pretend more and more. stay tuned...

Which is why when WADA were considering their options re Clen they said they may introduce a threshold (which they didn't) or take it case by case.

you did not. you selected a statement about strict liability, perverted it and tried to obfuscate the simple point i made about the wild differences in treatment nielsen and colo received for essentially identical circumstances. repeat for you: the principle written in the wada rules did not prevent almost diametrically opposed interpretation of the 2 riders - same day tested, same restaurant, same lab.

your inability of accepting the simple fact points very clearly that you either need more home work, or more likely, intrenched yourself b/c you cornered yourself.



jeez, once again, i ask you to point where it was inaccurate side by side compared to wada's own text.

otoh, i challenged you earlier - openly and publicly - that you, dr maserati who frequently accused users of making stuff up and demanding evidence - i accuse you of making up a story about the origin of contador's meat.

you conveniently skipped it

i repeat the challenge, please provide evidence that contador's defense excluded foreign origin of his meat. did you make it up ?

I have gone back and read all your posts - where did you openly and publicly challenge me? I see one vague post about the origin of AC (the person you are not talking about) meat and there is no question in it.

 

[python]

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.

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

Which is why when WADA were considering their options re Clen they said they may introduce a threshold (which they didn't) or take it case by case.

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.

I have gone back and read all your posts - where did you openly and publicly challenge me? I see one vague post about the origin of AC (the person you are not talking about) meat and there is no question in it.

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