Chambers, Ohuruogu and how to aviod drug testers

[Diamond]

From a physiological perspective this is absolutely untrue: you build the muscle on drugs, you use the muscle when drug free because you retain that unnatural muscle advantages for a number of years - that's a large part of the argument against Chambers.


Not that I agree with you that is the issue "right now".

I'm no physician or musclo-skeletal expert, and I'm guessing you're not either, but my impression from reading about these doping scandals is that you have to sustain your doping regime otherwise any advantage is lost.

Your body has a pre-programmed range of athletic ability that is governed by your genetic make-up. Sure you can push the boundaries if you train very hard but you will always come up against your natural limitations.

Doping allows you to temporarily gain an advantage in muscle mass, red blood cell count etc... but if you stop the doping your body's ability to go beyond its natural boundaries will be lost.

In other words doping can fuck you up permanently (infertility, reduced life expentancy) but it can't alter your genetic make up to give you a permanent advantage.

 

[Diamond]

As yet, I am not convinced that it is impossible for her to be currently experiencing a direct benefit of historic drug use.

And it is quite possible that she could be experiencing an indirect benefit. For instance, past funding and sponsorship would have been based upon her performace at that time; if that peformance was drug enhanced, that funding would have been obtained as a result of cheating. Undoubtedly, she is currently benefiting from that past funding, because it went towards the training etc required to get her to the point at which she is today.

There is also the argument that she may be benefitting from missing the drugs tests. If, by attending the tests, drug use would have been detected, and, as a consequence, she would have been banned from taking part in the Olympics, then we have to accept that she may have benefitted from deliberately avoiding them.

I'm not putting any more strongly than that; as I've already said, I don't know if she was taking drugs, and ducked the tests for that reason. But, if she was, she'd have clearly benefitted from breaking the rules surrounding testing. For me, that's the crux of this whole thing - the regime creates an environment that allows drugs cheats to prosper (whether or not that happened in her case, the precedent it has set will undoubtedly facilitate exploitation of the system of drugs cheats in the future).

Those are good arguments that I hadn't really thought about but there's no way now for us to know on either of them.

I suppose you just have to look at the wider context and for me the wider context indicates that she did not take drugs and consequently the indirect benefits that you refer to were either of no significance or founded on her own hard work.

 

[Athos]

Those are good arguments that I hadn't really thought about but there's no way now for us to know on either of them.

I suppose you just have to look at the wider context and for me the wider context indicates that she did not take drugs and consequently the indirect benefits that you refer to were either of no significance or founded on her own hard work.

Sadly (both for her and for the sport), to many people, the wider context (i.e. her missing three seperate tests) indicates that she did take drugs (and she is the only person to blame for that suspicion). I'm undecided, but even that is an unnecessary shame; if the authorites took a zero tolerance approach to positive tests and to people missing tests, then the integrity of the sport would be protected.

 

[ymu]

What's more likely?

A: Super-talented medal prospect gets involved in a shambolic drug operation that manages to get her banned without even being tested, but the super-anti-drugs British athletics establishment decides to turn a blind eye after a bit of pressure and loads of super-anti-drugs athletes are persuaded to support her

B: Shambolic British athletics organisation lets down one of its best prospects by failing to provide the support necessary (Frankie Gavin, anyone?)

 

[Jessiedog]

You're just being hysterical now. Bolt is atypical for a sprinter, being built more like a basketball player - he's long and lanky, not a bag of muscles. Stand him next to Linford Christie of a few years ago and it's obvious which one has drug-enhanced muscles.

No I'm not.

I'm pointing out that their is no accredited O-O-S dope testing regime in Jamaica and that given this it's suspicious that the Jamaicans have done so well.

And posting pictures doesn't change that.

If Bolt's using drugs, with his style they'd have to be ephedrine-type on-the-day drugs - and he's tested clean, having been tested more than most because of the world record.

Did you actually read the opening post?

It's got nothing to do with In-Competitition-testing, at all.





Woof

 

[Jessiedog]

What's more likely?

A: Super-talented medal prospect gets involved in a shambolic drug operation that manages to get her banned without even being tested, but the super-anti-drugs British athletics establishment decides to turn a blind eye after a bit of pressure and loads of super-anti-drugs athletes are persuaded to support her

B: Shambolic British athletics organisation lets down one of its best prospects by failing to provide the support necessary (Frankie Gavin, anyone?)

IMO, it's most likely that she was doping and then "duck and diving" to try and avoid suspicion.

Whatever the case, she's now proven that if you are doping, it's better to duck a third-test and get a years ban than to fail a third-test and get a lifetime ban. In the former, you still get to compete.



The whole thing is corrupt.





Woof

 

[ymu]

Look - did you just watch the 200m final? I don't know what commentary you're getting, but Michael Johnson was doing it for the BBC. He explained - as he has done many times already - that a 6'5" lanky sprinter just should not be able to get up to speed that fast. Once he's at top speed, noone else has a chance because his stride is enormous, but normally the start would prevent someone with his frame doing well.

It's pure technique - nothing else. Someone with his physique using drugs would be doing so for endurance, not speed.

 

[TrippyLondoner]

Look - did you just watch the 200m final? I don't know what commentary you're getting, but Michael Johnson was doing it for the BBC. He explained - as he has done many times already - that a 6'5" lanky sprinter just should not be able to get up to speed that fast. Once he's at top speed, noone else has a chance because his stride is enormous, but normally the start would prevent someone with his frame doing well.

It's pure technique - nothing else. Someone with his physique using drugs would be doing so for endurance, not speed.

Agreed, just ignore jessie, he knows fuck all and is just going to say anyone who wins is cheating.*goes back to ignoring thread*

 

[Jessiedog]

Look - did you just watch the 200m final? I don't know what commentary you're getting, but Michael Johnson was doing it for the BBC.

Of course I'm not - I'm boycotting!

He explained - as he has done many times already - that a 6'5" lanky sprinter just should not be able to get up to speed that fast. Once he's at top speed, noone else has a chance because his stride is enormous, but normally the start would prevent someone with his frame doing well.

It's pure technique - nothing else. Someone with his physique using drugs would be doing so for endurance, not speed.

You talking about Bolt?

The bloke who gets the chance to cheat becuase his country has no accredited O-O-S testing regime?

 

[Athos]

What's more likely?

A: Super-talented medal prospect gets involved in a shambolic drug operation that manages to get her banned without even being tested, but the super-anti-drugs British athletics establishment decides to turn a blind eye after a bit of pressure and loads of super-anti-drugs athletes are persuaded to support her

Maybe she was only banned for a year because she wasn't even tested (rather than despite not being tested); had she been tested the ban may have been longer.

And who knows why the authorities backed down; maybe they feared the cost of legal proceedings, or maybe they just wanted another medal prospect on the books.

Also, I remeber when Dwain Chambers was considered an anti-drugs athlete - they all are until they're caught! And remeber that nobody is going to risk coming out and condeming her without hard evidence.

B: Shambolic British athletics organisation lets down one of its best prospects by failing to provide the support necessary (Frankie Gavin, anyone?)

How much support did she need? It's pretty simply, isn't it? Tell them where you're gonna be for one hour on each of five days, and, if you're going to be somewhere else, let them know. How can British Athletics help with that? Surely she has to take some responsibility. Ok, maybe she could get it wrong once, but twice is really very careless, and three times...? If I was on my final warning I'd make damn sure I remembered, even if it meant setting a reminder on my phone to go off every hour!

 

[Jessiedog]

Agreed, just ignore jessie, he knows fuck all and is just going to say anyone who wins is cheating.*goes back to ignoring thread*

Fuck you too, dickwad!








Woof

 

[Jessiedog]

I know you really want to "believe", ymu, but please, take a step back for a moment and consider what having no accredited O-O-S regime actually means.

It means there is no way to evaluate whether or not this country's teams members have or have not been availing themselves of the opportunity thus presented to pop performance enhancing drugs like smarties in order to boost their performance.

No way to know.

Given their performances, how could there not be suspicions?



Woof

 

[Nigel Irritable]

Consequently she would have to be doping now. Given her current testing record that is clearly not the case.

This is the kind of statement that makes me wonder if the people who keep posting in favour of Orohuogo actually bother to read the posts that they are responding to.

Once more:

Testing, particularly in-competition testing, only catches the stupid, the desperate or the extremely unlucky. Many of the substances used by top athletes are undetectable by any tests we currently have or use. Some other substances that top athletes use are detectable, but generally only within a short window.

For that reason, when cheats are using detectable substances they generally use them out of competition, when testing is very infrequent. Should they be unlucky enough to be tested during the brief period when one of the substances they are using is detectable, their main response is to use various forms of the "ducking and diving" technique mentioned earlier - missing tests, knowing that (a) they won't be banned the first two times in 18 months and (b) if they are so staggeringly unlucky as to have the testers try to hit them three times when drugs are still detectable that the resulting ban will be shorter than the one that would come from a positive test.

This means that saying that someone presented themselves for testing a few days later is not at a defence at all. Every day matters, because most of the detectable substances are only detectable for limited periods of time.

This also means that NO AMOUNT OF TESTING means that someone is currently clean. It doesn't matter if they test someone thirty times in the weeks of the Olympics, if the substance they are using is undetectable or if they gained the benefit of a detectable substance back when they weren't being tested regularly some months ago.

Failing a test, missing three tests or tampering with a sample means that you are proven to be a doping violator. Passing any number of tests does not, unfortunately, mean that you are clean. Some of the most famous drug cheats there are passed a huge number of tests, remember.

Orohuogo has been proven to have broken doping controls. The British team has a policy of not allowing anyone who breaks doping controls, whether through missing three tests, tampering with a sample or getting a positive result, to compete for them in the Olympics. That's something British sport can be proud of. People who engage in special pleading for Orohuogo are undermining that policy.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

How much support did she need? It's pretty simply, isn't it? Tell them where you're gonna be for one hour on each of five days, and, if you're going to be somewhere else, let them know. How can British Athletics help with that? Surely she has to take some responsibility. Ok, maybe she could get it wrong once, but twice is really very careless, and three times...? If I was on my final warning I'd make damn sure I remembered, even if it meant setting a reminder on my phone to go off every hour!

Given that she tested clean three days after it, I think we can all assume that the third missed test was a mistake.

 

[Athos]

Given that she tested clean three days after it, I think we can all assume that the third missed test was a mistake.

No we can't; some drugs could have been expelled within that time. See the letter linked in the OP.

 

[Nigel Irritable]

Given that she tested clean three days after it, I think we can all assume that the third missed test was a mistake.

If I have to keep banging my head on this desk for much longer, I'm fairly sure that I'm going to cause permanent damage.

Once more: testing negative on a Thursday does not mean that you would have tested negative on the Monday. If a cheat is using a detectable substance, they are generally used out of competition, in short bursts, flushed from the athletes body as quickly as possible. Every day counts.

 

[Athos]

This is the kind of statement that makes me wonder if the people who keep posting in favour of this proven doping violator actually bother to read the posts that they are responding to.

Once more:

Testing, particularly in-competition testing, only catches the stupid, the desperate or the extremely unlucky. Many of the substances used by top athletes are undetectable by any tests we currently have or use. Some other substances that top athletes use are detectable, but generally only within a short window.

For that reason, when cheats are using detectable substances they generally use them out of competition, when testing is very infrequent. Should they be unlucky enough to be tested during the brief period when one of the substances they are using is detectable, their main response is to use various forms of the "ducking and diving" technique mentioned earlier - missing tests, knowing that (a) they won't be banned the first two times in 18 months and (b) if they are so staggeringly unlucky as to have the testers try to hit them three times when drugs are still detectable that the resulting ban will be shorter than the one that would come from a positive test.

This means that saying that someone presented themselves for testing a few days later is not at a defence at all. Every day matters, because most of the detectable substances are only detectable for limited periods of time.

This also means that NO AMOUNT OF TESTING means that someone is currently clean. It doesn't matter if they test someone thirty times in the weeks of the Olympics, if the substance they are using is undetectable or if they gained the benefit of a detectable substance back when they weren't being tested regularly some months ago.

Failing a test, missing three tests or tampering with a sample means that you are proven to be a doping violator. Passing any number of tests does not, unfortunately, mean that you are clean. Some of the most famous drug cheats there are passed a huge number of tests, remember.

Orohuogo is a proven doping violator. The British team has a policy of not allowing anyone who breaks doping controls, whether through missing three tests, tampering with a sample or getting a positive result, to compete for them in the Olympics. That's something British sport can be proud of. People who engage in special pleading for Orohuogo are undermining that policy.

Spot on.

 

[ymu]

I know you really want to "believe", ymu, but please, take a step back for a moment and consider what having no accredited O-O-S regime actually means.

It means there is no way to evaluate whether or not this country's teams members have or have not been availing themselves of the opportunity thus presented to pop performance enhancing drugs like smarties in order to boost their performance.

No way to know.

Given their performances, how could there not be suspicions?



Woof

As it happens, I'm deeply suspicious about one of the Jamaican female sprinters. She has drug muscles.

The point is, Bolt does not. He's not a typical sprinters build for a start - no drug muscles. And drugs are taken to allow athletes to train harder and longer - but Bolt is sleeping in and living off chicken nuggets during the Olympics ...

He's just not a drugs cheat, and you make yourself look very very silly by suggesting that he is. There are some real cheats who should be stopped from competing, but auto-hysteria just because someone's winning is ridiculous.

 

[Jessiedog]

Given that she tested clean three days after it, I think we can all assume that the third missed test was a mistake.

You haven't read this thread have you?

That's point's been covered.


She could easily have known that she would fail a scheduled test and yet pass one three days later. It's quite sophisticated what they do, you know.





Woof

 

[Barking_Mad]

Given that she tested clean three days after it, I think we can all assume that the third missed test was a mistake.

3 days is a long time.

 

[Athos]

As it happens, I'm deeply suspicious about one of the Jamaican female sprinters. She has drug muscles.

The point is, Bolt does not. He's not a typical sprinters build for a start - no drug muscles. And drugs are taken to allow athletes to train harder and longer - but Bolt is sleeping in and living off chicken nuggets during the Olympics ...

He's just not a drugs cheat, and you make yourself look very very silly by suggesting that he is. There are some real cheats who should be stopped from competing, but auto-hysteria just because someone's winning is ridiculous.

Yeah, repeatedly ducking drug tests is better indicator of guilt than success on the track, wouldn't you say?

 

[Jessiedog]

This is the kind of statement that makes me wonder if the people who keep posting in favour of Orohuogo actually bother to read the posts that they are responding to.

Once more:

Testing, particularly in-competition testing, only catches the stupid, the desperate or the extremely unlucky. Many of the substances used by top athletes are undetectable by any tests we currently have or use. Some other substances that top athletes use are detectable, but generally only within a short window.

For that reason, when cheats are using detectable substances they generally use them out of competition, when testing is very infrequent. Should they be unlucky enough to be tested during the brief period when one of the substances they are using is detectable, their main response is to use various forms of the "ducking and diving" technique mentioned earlier - missing tests, knowing that (a) they won't be banned the first two times in 18 months and (b) if they are so staggeringly unlucky as to have the testers try to hit them three times when drugs are still detectable that the resulting ban will be shorter than the one that would come from a positive test.

This means that saying that someone presented themselves for testing a few days later is not at a defence at all. Every day matters, because most of the detectable substances are only detectable for limited periods of time.

This also means that NO AMOUNT OF TESTING means that someone is currently clean. It doesn't matter if they test someone thirty times in the weeks of the Olympics, if the substance they are using is undetectable or if they gained the benefit of a detectable substance back when they weren't being tested regularly some months ago.

Failing a test, missing three tests or tampering with a sample means that you are proven to be a doping violator. Passing any number of tests does not, unfortunately, mean that you are clean. Some of the most famous drug cheats there are passed a huge number of tests, remember.

Orohuogo has been proven to have broken doping controls. The British team has a policy of not allowing anyone who breaks doping controls, whether through missing three tests, tampering with a sample or getting a positive result, to compete for them in the Olympics. That's something British sport can be proud of. People who engage in special pleading for Orohuogo are undermining that policy.

Hallejulah!


Do you get it now LBJ and ymu?




Woof

 

[ymu]

Yeah, repeatedly ducking drug tests is better indicator of guilt than success on the track, wouldn't you say?

I agree. And I do take the point that Ohuruogu should not set a precedent - the three test rule is critical or any drug-testing is pointless.

The key point is that there appears to be overwhelming evidence of her innocence which has been accepted by a very anti-drugs body that imposes harsher penalties on its own athletes than anywhere else in the world AFAIK. I think we have to accept that judgement as being sound.

 

[Flashman]

It was three years ago ffs get over it.

She done the crime and done the time, her muscles are her own and she won.

The End.

 

[kabbes]

Whatever the case, she's now proven that if you are doping, it's better to duck a third-test and get a years ban than to fail a third-test and get a lifetime ban. In the former, you still get to compete.

Only if you successfully convince an appeals tribunal that it was a pure accident and that you are actually completely clean. Which is really not an easy task.

Bark.

 

[Jessiedog]

As it happens, I'm deeply suspicious about one of the Jamaican female sprinters. She has drug muscles.

The point is, Bolt does not. He's not a typical sprinters build for a start - no drug muscles. And drugs are taken to allow athletes to train harder and longer - but Bolt is sleeping in and living off chicken nuggets during the Olympics ...

He's just not a drugs cheat, and you make yourself look very very silly by suggesting that he is. There are some real cheats who should be stopped from competing, but auto-hysteria just because someone's winning is ridiculous.

Naivete in the extreme.

*shrugs*



Woof

 

[Athos]

I agree. And I do take the point that Ohuruogu should not set a precedent - the three test rule is critical or any drug-testing is pointless.

Glad you agree.

The key point is that there appears to be overwhelming evidence of her innocence which has been accepted by a very anti-drugs body that imposes harsher penalties on its own athletes than anywhere else in the world AFAIK. I think we have to accept that judgement as being sound.

But, I think we'll have to agree to disagree on that.

 

[Jessiedog]

It was three years ago ffs get over it.

She done the crime and done the time, her muscles are her own and she won.

The End.

Sorry.

You can't prove that.





Woof

 

[Athos]

It was three years ago ffs get over it.

She done the crime and done the time, her muscles are her own and she won.

The End.

Good point. Case closed.

 

[Flashman]

Sorry.

You can't prove that.





Woof

I don't have too, she's been passed as legal.

Prove she's on drugs.