- Joined
- Jul 7, 2009
- Messages
- 8,412
- Reaction score
- 415
They can think whatever they want, doesn't mean there is evidence.
Fact is there is evidence that he is dirty.
They can think whatever they want, doesn't mean there is evidence.
Fact is there is evidence that he is dirty.
there's evidence he's dirty. and evidence he's not.They can think whatever they want, doesn't mean there is evidence.
Fact is there is evidence that he is dirty.
wait - you think that's real journalism? lol. did usada test someone they weren't supposed to? the article doesn't say.New Year, old story. What a joy to begin 2019 with the news that Usada, the one-hit wonders still chasing a follow-up to their 2012 chart-topping effort with Lance Armstrong, have snapped on the rubber gloves for real this time and set about cleaning up the cesspool of nonagenarian doping in sport. Not a minute too soon, either.
Big props to Usada, by the by. You really have to hand it to them. For seven full years, they’ve bided their time and not done anything rash or, God forbid, newsworthy. Lance was a biggie, no doubt about it. And when it happened, we all presumed that if they could take down the most famous doper in sport, then surely nobody was safe. So we waited to see who would be next.
https://www.irishtimes.com/sport/us...but-aren-t-there-bigger-fish-to-fry-1.3749172
This is how USADA is covered by publications with real journalism. Not MMA fanboi sites.
does usada oversee the nfl? tennis?
ok. what about the nfl? and did they erroneously test the old guy? what should they have done with the results?You're way behind if you can't answer those questions yourself.
Serena Williams described her treatment by the U.S. Anti-Doping Agency (USADA) as shocking on Sunday as she reacted to news that she had not been home for an out-of-competition test. https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-t...ays-treatment-by-usada-shocking-idUKKBN1JR1LC
there's evidence he's dirty. and evidence he's not.
and yes, experts publicly stating their view based on all available information generally does mean there's evidence. they're role isn't to just make things up.
that makes no sense. there's evidence he intentionally cheated. there's evidence he didn't intentionally cheat. there's no definitive proof on either side.Evidence he's not dirty would mean the absence of evidence stating that he is dirty.
No bueno muchacho
ok. what about the nfl? and did they erroneously test the old guy? what should they have done with the results?
that makes no sense. there's evidence he intentionally cheated. there's evidence he didn't intentionally cheat. there's no definitive proof on either side.
that makes no sense. there's evidence he intentionally cheated. there's evidence he didn't intentionally cheat. there's no definitive proof on either side.
It opens the door for them to do it with others.The obvious question is why would usada conspire to support one guy?
The article mentioned the nfl.What do these questions have to do with anything? What does testing in the NFL have to do with Jon Jones or USADA being thought of as a bit of joke by sports journalists outside the US?
Use the money they used in setting up a testing pool for 1 competitor in their 90's to fund one drug test for Jon Jones in the 10 months he didn't get tested by USADA cause they have to "allocate resources". Or use the money for more CIR tests as they don't always use it for that. Pretty simple really.
Why would they?It opens the door for them to do it with others.
Yeah, you’re not responding to what I said. Look again.definitive proof he pissed dirty = definitive proof he's not clean, how do you not understand that kid?
Well again, that’s not what the arbitration agreements say. Again, inconvenient I know. He was punished because he was guilty until proven innocent and couldn’t prove innocence. The opinion is important nonetheless.I think it’s sensible for the default assumption to be “if someone tests positive for steroid metabolites then they intentionally cheated unless they can prove otherwise via tainted supplements”. Anything else is most likely mental gymnastics.
If we adopted the default assumption that someone is “innocent until proven guilty” in regards to testing positive then virtually every violation would be dismissed.
Yeah, you’re not responding to what I said. Look again.
also there was a "technical error" with Lesnar's sample... and so he got off....
Funny because the test results he failed say he's not. I didn't know they suspended innocent people also.