Doping in other sports?

["Jeff"]

In another topic I made an ironic comment about Ledecky's high forehead and receding hairline as obvious proof for steroid abuse. To me it was a joke. Now I visit this topic for the first time and people are actually discussing this, this is just laughable.


I know a lot of alopecia androgenetica, that's what this might is. Yet after seeing her pictures as young girl, you can clearly see this her human look as well. When you get older, the skull will become bigger too, just as the forehead. I dont know if Ledecky is on the juice. I do know this particular argument is disgusting.

Neither is it uncommon that young swimsters dominate at a young age, in contrast to men.

Franziska van Almsick
Janet Evans

etc etc.

 

[ray j willings]

Re:

Ray -sending the same message twice doesn't mean people are going to read it or take any more notice of it

Also Blackcat doesn't say in his post that her definition is down to steroids or drugs at a young age he is simply stating it is not normal.
My girlfriend is an ex swimmer (UCLA and USA olympic trialist) and she will tell you that the diet and food regime and training regime from a young age is not only - Not Normal it is also not healthy. - She is now a nurse and knows what she is talking about.

So i take it from reading the comments here that there is something that is worrying and it may be her diet and training for a young person is too much - which as has been stated earlier is a society problem we have overlooked for too long. We look at younger and younger athletes to get better results.

and that by the time she is 15 her results are indicative of doping which is equally worrying

I was only interested in Blackcats view. I enjoy his posts and his opinion's it was not meant as an attack, just would be interested on his view to my post..
I think most athletes are very close to unhealthy ...Look at Froome or Chickens physique they are beyond healthy IMO. Athletes push and train and breakdown and rebuild etc etc their bodies take a huge amount of stress and now we have kids putting the same kind of stresses on body's not fully developed. Its not good.

 

[Rob27172]

Re: Re:

Ray -sending the same message twice doesn't mean people are going to read it or take any more notice of it

Also Blackcat doesn't say in his post that her definition is down to steroids or drugs at a young age he is simply stating it is not normal.
My girlfriend is an ex swimmer (UCLA and USA olympic trialist) and she will tell you that the diet and food regime and training regime from a young age is not only - Not Normal it is also not healthy. - She is now a nurse and knows what she is talking about.

So i take it from reading the comments here that there is something that is worrying and it may be her diet and training for a young person is too much - which as has been stated earlier is a society problem we have overlooked for too long. We look at younger and younger athletes to get better results.

and that by the time she is 15 her results are indicative of doping which is equally worrying

I was only interested in Blackcats view. I enjoy his posts and his opinion's it was not meant as an attack, just would be interested on his view to my post..
I think most athletes are very close to unhealthy ...Look at Froome or Chickens physique they are beyond healthy IMO. Athletes push and train and breakdown and rebuild etc etc their bodies take a huge amount of stress and now we have kids putting the same kind of stresses on body's not fully developed. Its not good.

Totally agree Ray - to me the differenceis that Froome etc are adults that have a choice and the ability to take that choice. this child should be given the option of being a normal child or at least kept from harm by those adults around her and it appears to me that this is not happening.

Apologies if my response came over as strong it was meant slightly tongue in cheek

 

[mrhender]

Enough with this...

Jeff and Rob.. Time to move on...

 

["Jeff"]

Re:

Enough with this...

Jeff and Rob.. Time to move on...

Its impossible to respond on that anyway.

 

[blackcat]

I really would appreciate if the mod's allowed my wildean drollery to go unchecked and without outside interference, you proletariat just cant appreciate being in the company of genius i guess

#poeslaw
#plebs

 

[blackcat]

Re: Re:

Ray -sending the same message twice doesn't mean people are going to read it or take any more notice of it

Also Blackcat doesn't say in his post that her definition is down to steroids or drugs at a young age he is simply stating it is not normal.
My girlfriend is an ex swimmer (UCLA and USA olympic trialist) and she will tell you that the diet and food regime and training regime from a young age is not only - Not Normal it is also not healthy. - She is now a nurse and knows what she is talking about.

So i take it from reading the comments here that there is something that is worrying and it may be her diet and training for a young person is too much - which as has been stated earlier is a society problem we have overlooked for too long. We look at younger and younger athletes to get better results.

and that by the time she is 15 her results are indicative of doping which is equally worrying

I was only interested in Blackcats view. I enjoy his posts and his opinion's it was not meant as an attack, just would be interested on his view to my post..
I think most athletes are very close to unhealthy ...Look at Froome or Chickens physique they are beyond healthy IMO. Athletes push and train and breakdown and rebuild etc etc their bodies take a huge amount of stress and now we have kids putting the same kind of stresses on body's not fully developed. Its not good.

Australian and American women won multiple golds as individuals.

why?
i) talent catchment was not even "the world" in the olympics. When GDR retires, it becomes open slather for the anglophones to capitalise. Australia is a seaboard nation, all population is within 50km of a beach, so nigh everyone can swim by the time they are 8.
ii) America has the collegiate athletic program, and p'raps a few thousand swimmer athlete females. effectively a full time pro
iii) at this time, the ROW did not have a training aveneue for women to graduate to, and be pros in adulthood. 16 yo women, had a fighting chance to compete with a 23yo woman if they do the same training program because of the equivalent foundation of NATURAL hormones in the women, and the older woman, had not had the advantage that a man would, in having the 7 years extra of training gone into a body and building the physique, the woman's hormones would not offer the same foundation for the same investment.
iv) no adequate employment for the women to be the full time athlete at 23. *devil's advocate: so what about the mens employment? good point, but the last 7 years, the man got a better return on his investment, and would not surrender that investment at olympic trials to his 16yo competitors, unless his name is Thorpe or Phelps.

ofcourse, if good enough, the athletes would sacrifice adult careers for one or two olympics in their twenties. and they could get a stipend from US Swimming, or lodging/board/coaching and per diem at the Australian Institute of Sport.

Post the Berlin Wall, the eastern bloc was less likely to have the sports school system and dope them from birth like the GDR. Ofcourse, they still did, but just not to the same degree, and with the same consistency. They still could not bring the entire Eastern Bloc to one pool, teach them all to swim, then work out who was the best swimmer. Swimming takes alot of infrastructure, and to recruit a significant catchment of potential athletes, teach them all to swim, then teach them swimming as a racing and competitive disciple. Australia can skip the first few stages, as the children are naturally given pool and ocean education as tots. America is the most advance western nation with infrastructure, pools and fasttimes at ridgemont high and red swimsuits. and baywatch, who can forget the hoff. ?

BUT NOW.

the ROW has caught up. China and France are significant players. And if you have a close look to the performances and results in the past two decades, you will find clusters. The Russian coach Touretski, a Berlin female sprinter group, two female groups in Brisbane Australia, primarily sprinters, and a group on the Gold Coast Australia.

there is a reason why they were all successful, they would have all taken the plunge metaphorically speaking.

 

[blackcat]

Re: Re:

Blackcat,,, my eldest son is 12 he is very tall for his age 95th percentile ...he also has 2 friends the same age who are the same height, 5'8....he just finished his first year at secondary school.
In his last year at junior school 2 girls in his class were taller than my son these girls are now 12/13 years old and are 5'9 maybe 5;10 both are taller than my son.
Your making assumptions that are not based on fact just innuendo because she his tall and she has developed muscle from doing a sport she loves, her muscle's are far from outrageous.

Like I said before she may not be clean but there is nothing in her physique that alludes to steroids.
She looks very feminine and looks very healthy. Not even a zit

but they are "swimming muscles".

they are supposed to be functional swimming muscles, freestyle muscles, which they are.

And for that, they are indeed large. A tall, long, female, a 6'foot woman(girl), will have naturally long arms. rule of thumb lets say.

the long arms, will seem long, and because they are so long, the visual perception will be on skinny long supple thin swimming-functional levers. They wont be thick. they wont be muscular(to the eye that is, for a 15yo girl). They just wont be. They will be lean and lithe and reflect the functional demand and capacity for the pool and ballistic nature of strokes. You wont get a thickness of an arm wrestler, or someone who does one arm push-ups, or 30 nose touch both arm pushups in a minute. just not plausible. Use a "control sample." every other swimmer at 15 who has come before her, then throw in every other swimmer up until 18. Then throw in all WR holders under 20, the majority will be doped, unless we can catch the odd American and Australian back in the 70s and 80s. Those WR will no longer be valid.

Then come up with a case that those muscles that look like there is zero subcutaneous tissue, and the significant pectoral minor that she displays with the arm raise behind her when she won either the 800 or 1500 olympic gold, that pectoral minor, that is soo prominent, it looks like a man's pectoral minor in his 20s, who has been swimming as an elite and worlds competitor. Now, swimming develops a prominent pectoral minor, but its prominence will only manifest itself after years of training. There is your control sample, bloody men.

 

[blackcat]

plus, zero subcutaneous tissue on her delts and shoulders, significant lean muscle. I dont see how this cannot be significant hormone regimen and her coaches should be held accountable and not lauded.

 

[blackcat]

if it was alright for the australians to cast aspersions on the Chinese when they were doping (and the hypocrisy from the Australians wrt swimming and doping), then it is only fair the same indictment leveled at such egregious doping of minors.

Chinese on the right, that might be an American cap to her left.
NB. visual illusion neutralise it for. The swimsuit nips in to her waist, and squishes the underarms of her lower scapula back. So, imagine conceptioning it tabula rasa.

 

[StyrbjornSterki]

Re: Re:

So he gets 1 year.

How the flippin' heck does that even work? I thought they were WADA signatories?

http://espn.go.com/mma/story/_/id/13432162/anderson-silva-suspended-one-year-failed-drug-tests?ex_cid=espnFB

The one-year suspension is dated retroactively to Jan. 31. He was also fined $380,000 and must submit a clean test before he can be re-licensed. The result of the fight, a unanimous decision victory for Silva, changes to a no-contest.

Silva (33-6) maintained his innocence throughout the disciplinary hearing, stating the failed drug tests were a result of a contaminated sexual-performance enhancing drug he received in an unmarked vial from a friend who lives in Thailand.

Are you referring to NSAC or UFC? UFC only hired USADA in June, so I suppose Silva's January fight gets a pass on WADA on account of Ex Post Facto. AFAIK, NSAC uses whatever bits of WADA code as suits its purpose (which mostly is lending an air of legitimacy to prizefighting in Las Vegas), when it suits, but is not a signatory.

Apparently Silva's hearing was a right circus. Random observers' cell phone ring tones kept going off, playing sexually suggestive tunes. He refused to answer at least one question on "5th Amendment" grounds. On another occasion he contradicted himself regarding the source of the supplement (later stating it was given him by a friend from Thailand) but blaming the error on his interpreters. Silva's lawyers didn't even bring any documentation/lab analysis to support their story that they had had the tainted supplement tested. Which was to be expected, because you can't test a steak ...I mean supplement ...that you don't have. And if they still had some of the the steak ...I mean supplement, ...why wouldn't they have turned it over to NSAC for testing to bolster their defence? One commissioner called the defence "hokey."

This punishment is little more than a slap on the wrist. They're really just reducing Silva's earnings on that fight, not taking anything away, he still pockets $420,000 USD on the night. And he can fight again in just five and a half months. Silva was pretty regular in taking two fights per year, so the net effect is he loses one decision, opportunity for one fight, and has his earnings reduced $380,000 USD. And I have little doubt that Dana White will accept him back into the UFC foal, citing "he's served his time/paid for the offence." Presuming he wants to resume fighting, just a couple of months shy of his 41st birthday.

Also, UFC will be implementing WADA's ban on IVs come this October, which will most impact the fighters who make the most drastic weight cuts (cough, cough, Chris Cyborg, cough) because they habitually rehydrate with a couple of bags of Ringer's or D5W. The most conservative estimates are that Silva cuts 15 kilos from his 'walking-around' weight to fight at 185 lbs. So it might be no coincidence that White recently has hinted there might be a 195-lb class in UFC's future, tailor-made for someone's Silva's size who no longer can risk such an extreme weight cut.

It has seemed to me that NSAC's findings always track pretty closely with Dana's public attitude regarding his fighter's doping offences. Fighters he speaks moderately of (or not at all) receive light punishment, and those he disparages get the smack-down. And I can't think of anyone White speaks of with such terms of endearment as Silva, probably going back at least as far as Chuck Liddell. Which could be significant, ...or not, ...depending on what you think about rumours of the Fertitta's brothers (or their father's) involvement with organised crime.


EDIT: The UFC's official statement on the Silva ruling, in full:

Following the Nevada Athletic Commission's hearing today, Anderson Silva is required to serve a 12-month suspension from competition, retroactive from his last fight on January 31. At the conclusion of his suspension, Silva must present a clean test upon reapplication of a license before his next fight in Nevada. The UFC organization maintains a strict, consistent policy against the use of any illegal and/or performance enhancing drugs, stimulants or masking agents by its athletes, and fully supports the Commission's ongoing efforts to ensure clean competition by all MMA athletes.

UFC recognizes Silva's great career and looks forward to his return to the Octagon in 2016.

(emphasis added)

Translation: Enjoy your holiday, Spider, and hurry back soon.

 

[the delgados]

Re:

I really would appreciate if the mod's allowed my wildean drollery to go unchecked and without outside interference, you proletariat just cant appreciate being in the company of genius i guess

#poeslaw
#plebs

Ha! I for one support the statement posted above.
No interfering with blackcat's postings on the wwweb, please and thank you.
Every prol deserves a laugh now and then.

 

[ray j willings]

Re: Re:

I really would appreciate if the mod's allowed my wildean drollery to go unchecked and without outside interference, you proletariat just cant appreciate being in the company of genius i guess

#poeslaw
#plebs

Ha! I for one support the statement posted above.
No interfering with blackcat's postings on the wwweb, please and thank you.
Every prol deserves a laugh now and then.

I agree with this, which is pointless but yet shows my support for free speech.

I want to say this. Blackcat's post's never come across as patronising and are very knowledgeable.
Its always difficult to express yourself in a post and I have drunk faaaaar 2 mush jack danuels danalls oh fu'%% it....don't do drugs

 

[Dear Wiggo]

Nice summary of noteworthy MMA steroid positives: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ODnYOQ4ySOE

 

[StyrbjornSterki]

Jeff Novitzky says fighters violating the UFC's IV prohibition (to be enacted in October) will face a 2-year ban.

Novitzky speaks more extensively to weight cutting in combat sports and risks of dehydration in the podcast linked to in another Clinic thread. He mentions that losing just 7% of body weight causes loss of cognitive function and 15% is regarded as "imminent death." When she was a coach on "The Ultimate Fighter" TV series, Ronda Rousey famously 'cut' 18 lbs. over 24 hours, which was about 12% of her walking-around weight, just to prove to one of her charges that it was purely a matter of willpower. Anderson Silva's walking-aound weight was rumoured to have been as high as 230, and he fought at 185, which would represent almost a 20% cut, but I doubt anyone outside Silva's camp knows how much weight he'd have lost through dietary restriction in the final weeks before the fight, leaving only a smaller and more survivable 'cut' through dehydration immediately prior to the weigh-in.

The most relevant point in that regard (IMHO) is that Novitzky cites evidence that, after an incident of extreme dehydration, even with an IV, rehydration is incomplete after just 24 hours. And it could take as much as 72 hours to completely replenish the fluid in the cranial vault, which, among other things, serves to protect the brain from concussion. A UFC weigh-in typically is scheduled 25 hours before the undercard event begins. Which means even fighters in the final fight of the night will have less than 30 hours to rehydrate between weigh-in and their fight. I'd be interested to see an informal study done to see if there might be a connection between weight-cutting and how "good" a fighter's chin is deemed to be. IOW, do fighters who engage in the most extreme weight-cutting tend to be the ones credited with having a "weak" chin (prone to knock outs).

In that same video, Novitzky and Joe Rogan have a hand-wringing session about how to get fighters to stop extreme weight-cutting, but I think the answer to that question is too simple: a second weigh-in, immediately before the fight, before the fighter is allowed to enter his locker room. Having weigh-ins the day before the fight is eye wash, the timing of which is entirely to the benefit for the promoters, to give fighters every possible opportunity to "make weight" so the fight card doesn't suffer disruption. But no one can afford to sustain extreme dehydration for 24 hours, or to still be so dehydrated when the bout commences. I can't see that the double-weigh-in could not force fighters to compete in a weight division more reflective of their true weight.

Or as an alternative, include a weigh-in in every OOC. Give a fighter a variance -- say, 6% of their weight class -- which (s)he may not exceed, even in an OOC, Give notice that at least one fighter from every pairing will be tested OOC in the month before the fight. If you don't make weight in the OOC, you forfeit 1/3° of your purse (which is the same as penalty now if a fighter misses weight by just a few pounds, and the opponent agrees to fight him/her anyway, albeit at a "catch weight") and are guaranteed of another OOC before the fight. Which means you could lose yet another 1/3° if you don't get your weight under control.

It's only gotten so out of hand because the promoters were willing to let the fighters put themselves at risk to limit their own financial exposure. Put the oneness on the promoters to fix it.

 

[D-Queued]

This is just awesome. Finally, this thread makes sense as the master himself has connected the cycling...<insert sport here> dots:

Michele Ferrari and son summoned for questioning about alleged EPO doping

The infamous sports doctor is suspected of providing advice and assistance about EPO and other banned substances to Italian biathlete Daniel Taschler and his father Gottlieb, a vice president of the international Biathlon federation in 2010

A Sports Federation exec?

Who woulda thunk it?

Did Nein and Phat slip Ferrari's business card to Taschler?

Dave.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

The long-running Essendon doping scandal has swung back to point a finger at the AFL, with papers lodged in the Supreme Court of Victoria alleging multiple acts of misleading or deceptive conduct by the league.

The Statement of Claim includes allegations that the AFL misled and deceived the public over both the integrity of the joint investigation, conducted by the AFL and the Australian Sports Anti-Doping Authority (ASADA), and the AFL's responsibilities for player health and safety.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-09-02/afl-accused-of-deceptive-conduct-during-doping-scandal/6743954

 

[StyrbjornSterki]

The saga of former MMA fighter Vanderlei "the Axe Murderer" Silva goes on. And on. And on.

First NSAC bans him (for life) for dodging an OOC. Initially Silva's only defense was that at the time of the attempted testing, he was not licensed to fight by the state of Nevada, therefore they lacked the jurisdiction to sanction him. Then a district court overturned NSAC for lack of supporting evidence and sent the case back to the athletic commission for re-examination. In the meanwhile, NSAC amended its charter to give themselves the authority to test unlicensed athletes.

So recognising that with the changes made to its charter, a re-hearing with NSAC is a lost cause, so Silva has filed an appeal to the state's supreme court in the hope that his jurisdictional claim might find some traction there.

 

[StyrbjornSterki]

NSAC's new, harsher penalties for PEDs positives went into effect on 1 September:

Avoiding Testing / Detection / Supplying a Urine Sample not of human origin or not of the tested athlete, adulterants, drugs (including diuretics) used as masking agents:

First Offense: 48-month suspension and fined 75 percent of purse
Second Offense: Lifetime ban and fined 100 percent of purse

Anabolic Steroids (includes testosterone and HGH):

First Offense: 36-month suspension and fined 50-70 percent of purse
Second Offense: 48-month suspension and fined 75-100 percent of purse
Third Offense: Lifetime ban and fined 100 percent of purse

Stimulants (amphetamines, cocaine, etc.):

First Offense: 24-month suspension and fined 35-45 percent of purse
Second Offense: 36-month suspension and fined 50-60 percent of purse
Third Offense: Lifetime ban and fined 100 percent of purse

Diuretics used to cut weight:

First Offense: 24-month suspension and fined 30-40 percent of purse
Second Offense: 36-month suspension and fined 40-50 percent of purse
Third Offense: Lifetime ban and fined 100 percent of purse

Sedatives, Muscle Relaxants, Sleep Aids, Anxiolytics, Opiates and Cannabis:

First Offense: 18-month suspension and fined 30-40 percent of purse
Second Offense: 24-month suspension and fined 40-50 percent of purse
Third Offense: 36-month suspension and fined 60-75 percent of purse
Fourth Offense: Lifetime ban and fined 100 percent of purse

In addition to stiffer penalties and a clear road to a lifetime ban, the NAC also instituted a change that could become known as the “Jon Jones Rule.” The commission has deemed Diuretics Used for Weight Cutting and Stimulants banned at all times, not only “in-competition.”

Stimulants were only banned “in-competition” – that is a day prior to a fight and the time after the fight in which a test sample is collected – when Jon Jones tested positive for cocaine. He was not penalized by the commission because the cocaine metabolite was found during “out-of-competition” testing and was not considered a banned substance during such testing.

 

[StyrbjornSterki]

MMA fighter Nick Diaz received a 5-year ban from NSAC for positives for weed in conjunction with the comeback fight of Anderson 'the Spider' Silva at UFC 183 (31 January 2015).

Anderson Silva previously had received a 1-year ban for positives for two AASs (drostanolone and androsterone), plus oxazepam and temazepam at the same event.

These new penalties (noted in my previous post) were advertised as 'harsher' but Wanderlei Silva was banned for life for a single instance of dodging an OOC before the new penalties came into effect (ban overturned on appeal, still unsettled). And although this is Nick Diaz's third dance with the NSAC over marijuana (the first two were in 2007 and 2012), the rationale for a penalty of two years two years in excess of the new rules is Nevada's own mystery. But it might have been influenced by the fact that Diaz "took the 5th" 27 times during the hearing. Or maybe because he fought while stoned (300 ng/ML, twice the NSAC's threshold). FWIW, his record over those three fights is 1-2, versus a career 29-6.


Still, I can't get past the lingering impression that the fighters who Dana White publicly disparages tend to get hammered by NSAC, while those he smiles upon get slaps on the wrist.

 

[Irondan]

Re:

MMA fighter Nick Diaz received a 5-year ban from NSAC for positives for weed in conjunction with the comeback fight of Anderson 'the Spider' Silva at UFC 183 (31 July 2015).

Anderson Silva previously had received a 1-year ban for positives for two AASs (drostanolone and androsterone), plus oxazepam and temazepam at the same event.

These new penalties (noted in my previous post) were advertised as 'harsher' but Wanderlei Silva was banned for life for a single instance of dodging an OOC before the new penalties came into effect (ban overturned on appeal, still unsettled). And although this is Nick Diaz's third dance with the NSAC over marijuana (the first two were in 2007 and 2012), the rationale for a penalty of two years two years in excess of the new rules is Nevada's own mystery. But it might have been influenced by the fact that Diaz "took the 5th" 27 times during the hearing. Or maybe because he fought while stoned (300 ng/ML, twice the NSAC's threshold). FWIW, his record over those three fights is 1-2, versus a career 29-6.


Still, I can't get past the lingering impression that the fighters who Dana White publicly disparages tend to get hammered by NSAC, while those he smiles upon get slaps on the wrist.

Seriously?

A 5 year ban for using Marijuana?

It's legal in 4 or 5 states now in the US and offers zero performance enhancement. If anything, it will decrease performance for a number of reasons.

Fighting while stoned is rather stupid tbh, and dangerous so I can understand that it would be against the rules but to treat it as a doping offence? Come on..

I guess the moral of the story is if you fight MMA, you better not piss off Dana White.

 

[More Strides than Rides]

Re: Re:

MMA fighter Nick Diaz received a 5-year ban from NSAC for positives for weed in conjunction with the comeback fight of Anderson 'the Spider' Silva at UFC 183 (31 July 2015).

Anderson Silva previously had received a 1-year ban for positives for two AASs (drostanolone and androsterone), plus oxazepam and temazepam at the same event.

These new penalties (noted in my previous post) were advertised as 'harsher' but Wanderlei Silva was banned for life for a single instance of dodging an OOC before the new penalties came into effect (ban overturned on appeal, still unsettled). And although this is Nick Diaz's third dance with the NSAC over marijuana (the first two were in 2007 and 2012), the rationale for a penalty of two years two years in excess of the new rules is Nevada's own mystery. But it might have been influenced by the fact that Diaz "took the 5th" 27 times during the hearing. Or maybe because he fought while stoned (300 ng/ML, twice the NSAC's threshold). FWIW, his record over those three fights is 1-2, versus a career 29-6.


Still, I can't get past the lingering impression that the fighters who Dana White publicly disparages tend to get hammered by NSAC, while those he smiles upon get slaps on the wrist.

Seriously?

A 5 year ban for using Marijuana?

It's legal in 4 or 5 states now in the US and offers zero performance enhancement. If anything, it will decrease performance for a number of reasons.

Fighting while stoned is rather stupid tbh, and dangerous so I can understand that it would be against the rules but to treat it as a doping offence? Come on..

I guess the moral of the story is if you fight MMA, you better not piss off Dana White.

The typical threshold for job/office drug tests is 50 ng/mL. WADA has a 150 mg/threshold.

The other thread made me curious about what it takes to get that much. I can't get to the link now, but in general, >150 ng/mL subjects were smoking every day. Those who recorded a >150 ng/mL first sample also had so much THC (or whatever the metabolite is that actually triggers a test) that they continued to test positive (over the 50 ng/mL threshold) for weeks after they started the trial.

In a way, the THC threshold is similar to caffeine. WADA is not interested in recreational users, and it takes some serious commitment to test positive.

But your point about it not being performance enhancing, and WADA enforcing some sort of morality, is a different story...

I said in the other thread that an athlete needs to follow the rule. Lobby against it, fight it, protest it, but while that is going on, follow it.

 

[StyrbjornSterki]

I read somewhere while scanning headlines today that NSAC raised their limit to 150 ng/mL because someone convinced them the risk of false positives was too high at 50. To hear Joe Rogan tell it, you could walk through a typical UFC gym these days and test 50 just from breathing the second-hand smoke. WADA raised their limit to 150 a couple of years ago to reinforce the point that they are not the pot police and don't care what recreational drugs you might use OOC (but friends don't let friends luge stoned). UFC was using 50 until USADA took over their anti-PEDs, and USADA now is applying WADA standards to UFC testing.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

But those are not WADA standard suspensions are they? The look remarkably different to the ones I was aware of - 4 years unless you cough up names or processes for that first offence, I thought?

Given these guys fight what twice a year max, that's only 2 fights. Compare that to a cyclist out for a year.

 

[Cake]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/swimming/34269638

Kylie Palmer cleared to compete in Rio. Interesting how little attention the original story got from the media when the case came up back in (I think) June: if this was a T & F, or cycling, athlete, it'd be headline sports news. But swimming cases fly under the radar, same as rugby etc.