Make this Jamaicans go sit down

[ohsee]

Guys, quick queshon: Is it cheating if everybody is doing it?

Africans don't count.

[1naija]

Guys, quick queshon: Is it cheating if everybody is doing it?

Africans don't count.

Our very very very old Uncle ohsee, our generation will not forgive you if it turns out Bolt is clean but you did not let enjoy the phenomenon becuase you used age to bully into thinking he is on juice. Allow us to enjoy the creations from our generation, like Google, Facebook, snap chat, Bolt, etc. Just because all your generation knew how to do was snort snuff and play draft does not mean you should bully us to not appreciate the great accomplishments of our generation.

The starter of this thread hereby withdraw the statement that "make these Jamaicans go sidown ".

[Vincent.]

Guys, quick queshon: Is it cheating if everybody is doing it?

Africans don't count.

It depends on what everybody is "doing."

There have to be rules, limits have to be set. Without rules or limits, sports will lose its integrity. On the other hand, whenever there are rules/limits, someone will always try to break the rules to get an advantage over others. Human nature.

[Coach]

Till caught, they're all clean. Bolt has been tested and proved clean. To think, the legislation has trialed the Champion and found no ill doing in his ways, yet here we are, the downtrodden, despised, maligned and mistreated, dragging one that has reached for the stars back down into the sewage in which the masses wade waiting for sweet chariots to carry them home. Brethren, let us behold a star amongst our ranks.

A brilliant black man excelling, reaching beyond the possible, redefining the impossible. Bolt is clean, why? Because his test results say so. Is it not the fear of the black man that leaves him dead on the sidewalk. Born guilty. F*ck it all with a wooden dildo, Phelps has been the most dominant sportsman in decades, who here has opened a thread to question his cleanliness. 20+ gold medals in an event far more demanding than a 10 second sprint. Bolt is cleaner than a whistle. The science says so. Till it says otherwise, Samuel L Stephens, pick cotton.

[Dr. Wazobia]

Till caught, they're all clean. Bolt has been tested and proved clean. To think, the legislation has trialed the Champion and found no ill doing in his ways, yet here we are, the downtrodden, despised, maligned and mistreated, dragging one that has reached for the stars back down into the sewage in which the masses wade waiting for sweet chariots to carry them home. Brethren, let us behold a star amongst our ranks.

A brilliant black man excelling, reaching beyond the possible, redefining the impossible. Bolt is clean, why? Because his test results say so. Is it not the fear of the black man that leaves him dead on the sidewalk. Born guilty. F*ck it all with a wooden dildo, Phelps has been the most dominant sportsman in decades, who here has opened a thread to question his cleanliness. 20+ gold medals in an event far more demanding than a 10 second sprint. Bolt is cleaner than a whistle. The science says so. Till it says otherwise, Samuel L Stephens, pick cotton.

Leave sentiment out of it, Coach.

A lot of elite athletes use Performance Enhancing Drugs (PEDs) and that is why every country is encouraged to have a robust drug-testing system in place. In 2013, the entire board of the Jamaican Anti Doping Commission resigned as a result of a 'drug-testing crisis' in Jamaica. Whether we like it or not, all Jamaican athletes (including Usain Bolt) have been tainted as a result of said crisis.

Performance Enhancing Drugs are not magic potions. You still have to follow a strict (and versatile) training regime and execute your plans when competing. However, PEDs enable athletes to train harder and recover faster - giving them an edge over their peers.

[Coach]

^Speculation. What do the facts say? The fact says he is clean. Till proven otherwise, he is clean. Now, out of interest, which one of we jiggerboos opened the Phelps is juicing thread?

[Dr. Wazobia]

^Speculation. What do the facts say? The fact says he is clean. Till proven otherwise, he is clean. Now, out of interest, which one of we jiggerboos opened the Phelps is juicing thread?

It is a fact that there was a 'drug testing crisis' in Jamaican athletics and it has tainted their athletes (including Bolt) whether we like it or not.

[ohsee]

^Speculation. What do the facts say? The fact says he is clean. Till proven otherwise, he is clean. Now, out of interest, which one of we jiggerboos opened the Phelps is juicing thread?

This is called thinking like an African. Di facs says dat we does not see Oliego Onyeoshi tiefing di moni so he is not corrupt and he is clean. Diar is no prove even though we can see all his brodas driving Mercedes SUV, when they was using Leggedes befor.

The science also says that chemists are constantly developing undetectable performance enhancements. The facts also say that virtually all the records of the past were set on drugs. Now we have even faster athletes running what the experts say are impossible times and Coachito still wants to believe in Santa Claus and the tooth fairy?

At Seoul, Big Ben was using an undetectable drug, and should not have been caught. If Ben Johnson's urine had not been sabotaged with a drug he had stopped using, we would have known he was a drug cheat, but Coachito would have called it "speculation," and Ben would have been "clean."

[Coach]

And to think, the argument of fact is African thinking and the other, speculative, superstitious perhaps, is unAfrican conjecture. A wiry old owl, wise without doubt and yet, the unparalleled intellect burdened by the championing of self above all else.

Mazi Ohsee, perhaps the argument has been lost in the sea of suspicion and intercontinental envy. As far as the lab tests report is Usain Bolt clean or unclean? No one is talking about Benjamin Johnson or Carlton Lewis. Similarly one could draw pointless analogy too. Hooded apparels and gangster lean are without doubt the identity stamps, in some instances, of a gang-banging, gun popping Bobby Shmurda, but does that make a follower of such fashions equally delinquent? Guilty by association. Click, click, boom. First place in the Men's 100 word pointless analogy final. Alas a return to simplicity...

According to the samples received since Bolt began being tested and the reports generated by these samples, has the governing body (although the village elder is equally as venerable) declared Usain Bolt clean or unclean?

On the basis of the reports received till date, is Usain Bolt a drug cheat, Yes or No?

One is, as ever, in awe of the wisdom that flows effortlessly like the waters of Victoria Falls, from Cyberia's Barrister, Professor, Evangelist Mazi Ohsee "1" and oft is found in audience and gladly so. Could one answer the above questions sans analogy (the race has been run), sans old Igbo proverbs and references to Olympians before one's time. In as simple terms as possible. Clean or Unclean. Yes or No. Thanks, the world awaits the single word replies to each answer.

As ever, kola has been broken.

[ohsee]

The Balco guy Victor Conte writes a letter to one of his "clients" (Dwain Chambers) describing how to use cocktails of PEDs and escape discovery. This was of course in the bad old days, before Usain Bolt learned how to run faster than all the drug cheats by only eating yams Coachito, don't be an African. Read and learn. The methods of today, are even more sophisticated than used by Marion Jones and all the Balco druggies. Marion Jones was tested dozens of times, and never caught until a snitch gave "The Clear" to the testers AND the testers developed a test to detect it. Because the chemists are cleverer than the testers, catching drug cheats who are using new undetectable drugs is almost impossible.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/olympic ... 403158.stm

Dear Dwain,
Per your request, this letter is to confirm I am willing to assist you in providing UK Sport and others with information that will help them to improve the effectiveness of their anti-doping programs.
The specific details regarding how you were able to circumvent the British and IAAF anti-doping tests for an extended period of time are provided below.
Your performance enhancing drug program included the following seven prohibited substances: THG, testosterone/epitestosterone cream, EPO (Procrit), HGH (Serostim), insulin (Humalog), modafinil (Provigil) and liothryonine, which is a synthetic form of the T3 thyroid hormone (Cytomel).
THG is a previously undetectable designer steroid nicknamed "the clear." It was primarily used in the off season and was taken two days per week, typically on Mondays and Wednesdays. Generally, these were the two most intense weight-training days of the week. The purpose was to accelerate healing and tissue repair. Thirty units (IU) of the liquid was place under the tongue during the morning time-frame. THG was used in cycles of "three weeks on and one week off."
Testosterone/epitestosterone cream was also primarily used during the off season. It was rubbed into the skin on the front of the forearm two days per week, typically Tuesdays and Thursdays. The dosage was ½ gram which contained 50mg of testosterone and 2.5mg of epitestosterone (20 to 1 ratio). The purpose was to offset the suppression of endogenous testosterone caused by the use of the THG and to accelerate recovery. The testosterone/epitestosterone cream was also used in cycles of three weeks on and one week off.
EPO was used three days per week during the "corrective phase", which is the first two weeks of a cycle. Typically, it was on Mondays, Wednesdays and Fridays. It was only used once per week during the "maintenance phase" thereafter, typically this was every Wednesday. The dosage was 4,000 IU per injection. The purpose was to increase the red blood cell count and enhance oxygen uptake and utilization. This substance provides a big advantage to sprinters because it enables them to do more track repetitions and obtain a much deeper training load during the off season. EPO becomes undetectable about 72 hours after subcutaneous injection (stomach) and only 24 hours after intravenous injection.
HGH was used three nights per week, typically on Mondays, Wednesdays and Fridays. Each injection would contain 4.5 units of growth hormone. Once again, this substance was used primarily during the off season to help with recovery from very strenuous weight training sessions.
Insulin was used after strenuous weight training sessions during the off season. Three units of Humalog (fast-acting insulin) were injected immediately after the workout sessions together with a powdered drink that contained 30 grams of dextrose, 30 grams of whey protein isolates and 3 grams of creatine. The purpose was to quickly replenish glycogen, resynthesize ATP and promote protein synthesis and muscle growth. Insulin acts as a "shuttle system" in the transport of glucose and branch chain amino acids. There is no test available for insulin at this time.
Modafinil was used as a "wakefulness promoting" agent before competitions. The purpose was to decrease fatigue and enhance mental alertness and reaction time. A 200mg tablet was consumed one hour before competition.
Liothryonine was used help accelerate the basic metabolic rate before competitions. The purpose was to reduce sluggishness and increase quickness. Two 25mg tablets were taken one hour before competition. There is no test available for liothryonine at this time.
In general terms, explosive strength athletes, such as sprinters, use anabolic steroids, growth hormone, insulin and EPO during the off season. They use these drugs in conjunction with an intense weight training program, which helps to develop a strength base that will serve them throughout the competitive season. Speed work is done just prior to the start of the competitive season.
It is important to understand it is not really necessary for athletes to have access to designer anabolic steroids such as THG. They can simply use fast-acting testosterone (oral as well as creams and gels) and still easily avoid the testers. For example, oral testosterone will clear the system in less than a week and testosterone creams and gels will clear even faster.
Many drug-tested athletes use what I call the "duck and dodge" technique. Several journalists in the UK have recently referred to it as the "duck and dive" technique. This is basically how it works.
First, the athlete repeatedly calls their own cell phone until the message capacity is full. This way the athlete can claim to the testers that they didn't get a message when they finally decide to make themselves available. Secondly, they provide incorrect information on their whereabouts form. They say they are going to one place and then go to another. Thereafter, they start using testosterone, growth hormone and other drugs for a short cycle of two to three weeks.
After the athlete discontinues using the drugs for a few days and they know that they will test clean, they become available and resume training at their regular facility.
Most athletes are tested approximately two times each year on a random out-of -competition basis. If a tester shows up and the athlete is not where they are supposed to be, then the athlete will receive a "missed test". This is the equivalent to receiving "strike one" when up to bat in a baseball game. The current anti-doping rules allow an athlete to have two missed tests in any given eighteen-month period without a penalty or consequence. So, the disadvantage for an athlete having a missed test is that they have one strike against them. The advantage of that missed test is the athlete has now received the benefit of a cycle of steroids. Long story short, an athlete can continue to duck and dive until they have two missed tests, which basically means that they can continue to use drugs until that time.
In summary, it's my opinion that more than fifty percent of the drug tests performed each year should be during the off season or the fourth quarter. This is when the track athletes are duckin' and divin' and using anabolic steroids and other drugs. Let me provide some rather startling information for your consideration. If you check the testing statistics on the USADA website, you will find that the number of out-of-competition drug tests performed during each quarter of 2007 are as follows: in the first quarter there were 1208, second quarter 1295, third quarter 1141 and in the fourth quarter there were only 642.
In late 2003 I advised USADA about the importance of random testing during the fourth quarter of the year. They did initially seem to follow my advice because they increased the number of fourth-quarter tests in 2004, 2005 and 2006.
However, they failed to continue this practice in 2007. Why would USADA decide to perform only 15% of their annual out-of-competition tests during the fourth quarter? Let's not forget that this is the off season before the upcoming summer Olympic Games. This is equivalent to a fisherman knowing that the fish are ready to bite and then consciously deciding that it is time to reel in his line and hook, lean his fishing pole up against a tree and take a nap.
On several occasions, I have provided detailed information to both USADA and WADA in an attempt to help them establish more effective testing policies and procedures.
I certainly have more information that I would like the opportunity to provide to you and UK Sport, but I will leave that for another time.
Hopefully, this information will be helpful and I am available to assist you further upon request.
Yours sincerely,
Victor Conte

[ohsee]

According to the samples received since Bolt began being tested and the reports generated by these samples, has the governing body (although the village elder is equally as venerable) declared Usain Bolt clean or unclean?

According to the samples received since Marion Jones began being tested and the reports generated by these samples, has the governing body declared Marion Jones clean or unclean? The answer is that she conducted several tests that came up negative. If my memory serves me right, she actually sued someone who said she was doping. When a snitch finally handed the testers "The Clear", that was when she was finally caught.

You argue as if the testing is infallible. It is not even close to being good, let alone infallible. Most of the athletes dodge all the time. Ben Johnson did for years. Carl Lewis. Linford Christie. The list is endless.

If testing is not a valid way of determining if someone is using drugs, then other ways have to be found, and one way is logical inference.

I am not speculating. The chance that Bolt is running unaided is beyond nil. It's an open secret.

On the basis of the reports received till date, is Usain Bolt a drug cheat, Yes or No?

Yes. Useless man. You think using Perry Mason TV courtroom tactics will help you? Mssscheeeew

[ohsee]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/others ... reams.html

That body, responsible for drug-testing on the island, have been vilified for having performed only one out-of-competition test in the six months before the London Olympics. Anger over the revelations has been intense. d#$% Pound, the former head of the World Anti-Doping Agency, told The Mail on Sunday that JADCO’s failings were ‘totally inexplicable and unacceptable’.
‘It’s clear that there’s been a failing of the anti-doping system,’ he added, in a damning assessment.
‘They know that when they leave the country their level of success is such that the athletes are going to get tested. My understanding is that they make sure they’re clean before they leave.
‘It was the same in the old Soviet Union and East Germany days — they didn’t let anyone out who was going to get caught. The Jamaican Anti-Doping Commission was doing almost no testing on their top-level athletes in the period leading to Beijing and London. You had a complete dominance of both of those competitions by those athletes. Such enormous dominance is of itself suspicious.’

An essay on drugs:

I once took a legal, over-the-counter preworkout supplement that contained a rare designer amphetamine. I don’t know if it was legal in international competition or not, but it felt just like taking a fat rip off the meth pipe and it made me lift like a motherfucker and a half. If I can do that for $24, you‘d have to be clinically retarded to think that Usain Bolt isn’t doing it right now. The whole hardline anti-doping act feels like some sort of charade kept up only to provide plausible deniability to fans who have been indoctrinated with the idea that ingesting certain chemicals on a certain list is some kind of deadly sin, a stance that represents a holdover from the early 80’s when anabolic steroids were new, mysterious, and turning East German women into bearded, gruff-voiced lumberjacks. When you consider that people know how to take take drugs without getting caught, there are drugs that cannot be reliably tested for, and there are performance-enhancing drugs that are unknown to the wider sporting community and are therefore not on any banned substances lists, it becomes quite clear that for all the testing, sanctioning, and press conferences, the IAAF is actually accomplishing less than nothing.


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/others ... z4Hqr66zv9
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

http://www.newstalk.com/toprunners

Today it was revealed that two of the fastest men in the world tested positive for steroids.

A month before the World Championships are due to begin in Moscow American Tyson Gay and Jamaican Asafa Powell confirmed the positive findings.

The pair hold the second and fourth highest times respectively.

The revelations bring to eight the number of top ten male sprinters who have either tested positive for steroids or have been implicated to have taken steroids.

Earlier this month world number one Usain Bolt insisted he was not doping ahead of the Diamond League meeting in Paris.

Take a look at the full list below.

[Coach]

Mazi, at the grand old age, it shouldn't be beyond your greatness to exercise humility. It is agreed that Ohseeclopedia knows everything and one has never challenged that matter of fact. Whether it is Perry Mason or Freemason, is irrelevant, t'is a very simple question, has Bolt ever been found guilty of the crime for which the Great Ohsee accuses him? In days of old, a finger dipped into a goblet of urine and then hastily wiped across the tongue, revealed the hidden sugar disease. Granted, the Grand Old Duke of York may indeed have unknown knowledge of similar strategies that may yet reveal the hidden concoctions swimming within Bolt's blood. WADA does not possess the ancestral knowledge plentiful in Mazi, agreed. There methods may indeed be lagging behind the powers of deception of the modern day athlete, but alas, it is what it is. By the standards of the day for sample testing, is Bolt a drug cheat? The answer, an emphatic No.

In years to come, he may be found guilty, but till then, he has been tested and passed.

[Dr. Wazobia]

According to the samples received since Bolt began being tested and the reports generated by these samples, has the governing body (although the village elder is equally as venerable) declared Usain Bolt clean or unclean?

According to the samples received since Marion Jones began being tested and the reports generated by these samples, has the governing body declared Marion Jones clean or unclean? The answer is that she conducted several tests that came up negative. If my memory serves me right, she actually sued someone who said she was doping. When a snitch finally handed the testers "The Clear", that was when she was finally caught.

You argue as if the testing is infallible. It is not even close to being good, let alone infallible. Most of the athletes dodge all the time. Ben Johnson did for years. Carl Lewis. Linford Christie. The list is endless.

If testing is not a valid way of determining if someone is using drugs, then other ways have to be found, and one way is logical inference.

I am not speculating. The chance that Bolt is running unaided is beyond nil. It's an open secret.

On the basis of the reports received till date, is Usain Bolt a drug cheat, Yes or No?

Yes. Useless man. You think using Perry Mason TV courtroom tactics will help you? Mssscheeeew

Balco and Marion Jones. That was such a disaster.

I was watching Marion's races earlier this week and she was so dominant. She was such a -ahem- 'natural'. Remind you of anyone?

[zee]

Guys, quick queshon: Is it cheating if everybody is doing it?

Africans don't count.

Kpom.............that's my point with 'tour de dope' em em I mean 'Tour de France'.

[tfco]

Mazi, at the grand old age, it shouldn't be beyond your greatness to exercise humility. It is agreed that Ohseeclopedia knows everything and one has never challenged that matter of fact. Whether it is Perry Mason or Freemason, is irrelevant, t'is a very simple question, has Bolt ever been found guilty of the crime for which the Great Ohsee accuses him? In days of old, a finger dipped into a goblet of urine and then hastily wiped across the tongue, revealed the hidden sugar disease. Granted, the Grand Old Duke of York may indeed have unknown knowledge of similar strategies that may yet reveal the hidden concoctions swimming within Bolt's blood. WADA does not possess the ancestral knowledge plentiful in Mazi, agreed. There methods may indeed be lagging behind the powers of deception of the modern day athlete, but alas, it is what it is. By the standards of the day for sample testing, is Bolt a drug cheat? The answer, an emphatic No.

In years to come, he may be found guilty, but till then, he has been tested and passed.

even if said Usain is warned ahead of time that "hey the testers are coming, clean up clean up"

And what about 'our' Mo(hammed) Farah, he who is associating with athletic coaches of dubious reputations

[ohsee]

Mazi, at the grand old age, it shouldn't be beyond your greatness to exercise humility. It is agreed that Ohseeclopedia knows everything and one has never challenged that matter of fact. Whether it is Perry Mason or Freemason, is irrelevant, t'is a very simple question, has Bolt ever been found guilty of the crime for which the Great Ohsee accuses him? In days of old, a finger dipped into a goblet of urine and then hastily wiped across the tongue, revealed the hidden sugar disease. Granted, the Grand Old Duke of York may indeed have unknown knowledge of similar strategies that may yet reveal the hidden concoctions swimming within Bolt's blood. WADA does not possess the ancestral knowledge plentiful in Mazi, agreed. There methods may indeed be lagging behind the powers of deception of the modern day athlete, but alas, it is what it is. By the standards of the day for sample testing, is Bolt a drug cheat? The answer, an emphatic No.

In years to come, he may be found guilty, but till then, he has been tested and passed.

even if said Usain is warned ahead of time that "hey the testers are coming, clean up clean up"

And what about 'our' Mo(hammed) Farah, he who is associating with athletic coaches of dubious reputations

Don't mind Coachito who is hiding behind the fig leaf of "He has been tested and never caught," when it is known that the tests are a joke, and only those who, for one reason or another do not follow "the rules" of drug use, get caught.

[ohsee]

Dey has not catch him, so he not cheating.

http://theconversation.com/the-science- ... ests-45602

The science of doping and how cheating athletes pass drug tests
August 20, 2015 4.25pm EDT
Two news outlets have alleged there was widespread cheating in endurance sports between 2001 and 2012. Peter Mooney/Flickr, CC BY-SA
Author

Greg Haff

Senior Lecturer in Exercise and Health Sciences, Edith Cowan University

Disclosure statement

Greg Haff is affiliated with the National Strength and Conditioning Association and currently serves as the organisations president.
Partners

Edith Cowan University

Edith Cowan University provides funding as a member of The Conversation AU.
The Conversation’s partners

View partners of The Conversation
Republish this article

We believe in the free flow of information. We use a Creative Commons Attribution NoDerivatives licence, so you can republish our articles for free, online or in print.
Republish

Email
Twitter64
Facebook
LinkedIn18
Print

The 15th Athletics World Championships, which open on August 22 in Beijing, China, present a significant challenge for the organisers. Allegations in early August of mass doping among athletes mean any untoward behaviour will pose a threat to the integrity of the competition.

According to the media revelations, a third of endurance runners who won Olympic and world championship medals from 2001 to 2012 may have cheated by taking performance enhancers or by “blood doping”. More than 800 track and field athletes are thought to have returned abnormal blood tests, suggesting they were cheating with impunity.

The World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) uses a battery of blood and urine tests to determine if athletes are cheating. A key tool is the biological passport program, which tests all athletes for doping and performance-enhancing drugs.
Blood doping

Blood doping increases the blood’s ability to carry oxygen. This can have a direct impact on VO2max, the measure of a person’s aerobic capacity. Ultimately, blood doping is one of the more effective illegal ways of improving endurance performance.

Athletes blood dope by either using blood transfusions or specific drugs to increase their red blood cell count (haemoglobin). When they transfuse blood into their bodies, they can re-infuse their own blood (autologous) or use blood from another person who serves as a donor (homologous).

And when blood is taken out of the body and used for transfusions, up to four components, including red blood cells, platelets, plasma and cryoprecipitated antihemphilic factor (AHF), are removed from the sample and then frozen. Typically the red blood cells are returned to the athlete’s body when the sample is re-infused, in order to increase their ability to carry oxygen.

When athletes re-infuse their own blood, there’s no direct way of detecting what they’ve done. But indirect detecting methods are available, such as measuring their total haemoglobin mass (red blood cell size) or metabolites of blood bag plasticisers (by-products of the container the blood is stored in).

If the athlete transfuses someone else’s blood, drug testers can look directly at the antigen pattern of the red blood cells to detect doping. Since everyone has a different genetic code, doping is easily spotted when red blood cells present different genetic markers.

Testers can also indirectly look for the presence of plasticisers in urine tests. Because stored blood is exposed to plasticisers and their metabolites, they can be detected when expelled through urine.
Blood doping is one of the more effective illegal ways of improving endurance performance. Shannan Muskopf/Flickr, CC BY-NC

As you can see, the combination of both blood and urine analytic techniques is very useful in detecting potential doping infractions involving blood transfusions.
Erythropoietin (EPO)

Another common method of doping is the use of recombinant human erythropoietin (rHuEPO), which stimulates the production of red blood cells. Erythropoietin (EPO) is a naturally occurring hormone found in the blood; recombinant EPO is the artificial version.

EPO’s ability to increase the number of red blood cells results in a dramatic increase of oxygen in the blood, which boosts athletic performance. Originally produced to treat several forms of chronic anaemia, EPO has been the source of numerous doping scandals in sport, especially in endurance sports such as cycling, distance running and cross-country skiing.

In addition to rHuEPO, athletes are likely to use erythropoiesis-stimulating agents (ERAs) such as FG-4592 (also known as Rodadustat). These are used to stimulate the body’s natural production of EPO in a fashion similar to training at altitude.

WADA added this compound to its testing regime only this year and athletes have already been caught using them. It’s likely many athletes have used these types of compounds before they were tested for, receiving a performance benefit without the risk of positive doping test.
Getting caught or evading detection

When the athlete’s blood samples are placed into the biological passport program, they are evaluated for changes in blood components (haemoglobin concentration; reticulocyte percentage; haemoglobin mass; reticulocyte count; red blood cell count; mean corpuscular volume; mean corpuscular haemoglobin; and mean corpuscular haemoglobin concentration) that are collectively used to assess if he or she may have blood doped.

After the athlete’s blood is thoroughly analysed, the data is used to calculate what has been termed the OFF Score (OFF-hr). This variable is calculated from the haemoglobin (a protein responsible for transporting oxygen in the blood) concentration, the reticulocyte (immature blood cells) percentage and an abnormal profile score.

If a suspicious or abnormal profile is determined with this calculation, the data is forwarded to a panel of doping experts who review it to determine if a doping infraction has actually occurred. If the panel deems that it has, WADA initiates a suspension process.

One way athletes appear to be circumventing the biological passports model is by small, frequent use of EPO. In 2011, Australian researchers found frequent micro-dosing allows athletes to use rhEPO without abnormal changes in the blood variables that are currently monitored by the athlete blood passport.

As the fight against doping continues, athletes appear to be continually searching for ways to elevate their performance and evade detection. The biological passport offers a great tool for limiting the practice of doping, but it seems that many athletes have already found ways to circumvent it.

[ohsee]

According to the samples received since Bolt began being tested and the reports generated by these samples, has the governing body (although the village elder is equally as venerable) declared Usain Bolt clean or unclean?

According to the samples received since Marion Jones began being tested and the reports generated by these samples, has the governing body declared Marion Jones clean or unclean? The answer is that she conducted several tests that came up negative. If my memory serves me right, she actually sued someone who said she was doping. When a snitch finally handed the testers "The Clear", that was when she was finally caught.

You argue as if the testing is infallible. It is not even close to being good, let alone infallible. Most of the athletes dodge all the time. Ben Johnson did for years. Carl Lewis. Linford Christie. The list is endless.

If testing is not a valid way of determining if someone is using drugs, then other ways have to be found, and one way is logical inference.

I am not speculating. The chance that Bolt is running unaided is beyond nil. It's an open secret.

On the basis of the reports received till date, is Usain Bolt a drug cheat, Yes or No?

Yes. Useless man. You think using Perry Mason TV courtroom tactics will help you? Mssscheeeew

Balco and Marion Jones. That was such a disaster.

I was watching Marion's races earlier this week and she was so dominant. She was such a -ahem- 'natural'. Remind you of anyone?

Chief,
They should make drug use legal and part of the combination of factors that make a great champion. After all, it is a complex combination of training, coaching, nutrition, strategy and tactics that go toward creating a world or Olympic champ. Why not add PEDs to the mix? It is not as if ohsee will suddenly beat Bolt in 100 meters if he started taking what Bolt is taking. Many athletes take drugs and still come last. Right now, I believe that drugs create a level playing field that allows the true talents to emerge. If it were possible to put the genie back in the drug bottle so every one could run on natural talent alone, Bolt would still win, but not with such ridiculous times.

[ohsee]

Where is Mr. "They have not catch him, so he must not be cheating," aka Coachito? More wan of informations about testing for you, this your testing that you imagine is proof of anything.

http://www.cbc.ca/sports/doping-cheats- ... -1.3312294

Anti-doping agencies can't keep pace with the science of cheating

'You think you've closed a loophole and then they find another one,' says Canadian anti-doping expert

By Sheena Goodyear, CBC News Posted: Nov 11, 2015 5:00 AM ET Last Updated: Nov 11, 2015 9:21 AM ET

The World Anti-Doping Agency on Monday accused the Russian government of covering up widespread doping among its track and field athletes. Experts say doping in sports won't go away if we stick with the same old policies.

The World Anti-Doping Agency on Monday accused the Russian government of covering up widespread doping among its track and field athletes. Experts say doping in sports won't go away if we stick with the same old policies. (Christinne Muschi/Reuters)

Russian athletes could be barred from Olympics, says IAAF's Coe
'It's extremely satisfying': Canada's athletes respond to Russian doping report
Track Doping
Russian doping scandal reveals sport's win-at-all-costs mentality
Russian doping scandal: Cheating athletes a product of corrupt system
Russian medallists under fire after doping report's release
10 notorious athletic cheating scandals
'Maybe that is the way to go,' Canadian marathoner says of ban on Russian athletes in Rio

Anti-doping agencies will forever be stuck taking one step forward and two steps back as long as athletes and their governments are willing to take extreme measures to win, a Canadian pioneer in sports doping regulation says.

WADA report says Russian government complicit in doping, coverups
​ANALYSIS| Canadian athletes not surprised by Russian doping allegations
​Tricks of the trade: How athletes blood dope

A World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) report released Monday that accuses the Russian government of complicity in doping and coverups in track and field is proof that nothing changes, said Norman Gledhill, who co-founded Canada's doping control program in the '80s.

"Everything old is new again. This has been going on for years and years and years," Gledhill, a professor of kinesiology and health science at Toronto's York University, told CBC News. "When this all came out about Russia, I thought, 'Duh! What's new?'"
'Chasing your tail'

Greg Jackson, an expert in sports policy from Brock University in St. Catharines, Ont., said the news didn't surprise him, either. Anti-doping policies have been ineffective since they were first implemented in the '60s, he said.

"A war on drugs approach, which is what the World Anti-Doping Agency takes towards doping in sport, I'm not sure it's worked anywhere," Jackson told CBC News.

'A war on drugs approach, which is what the World Anti-Doping Agency takes towards doping in sport, I'm not sure it's worked anywhere.'
- Greg Jackson, Brock University

"I mean, they come up with new tests as new drugs and methods to dope are identified, but it's always been this idea that we'll punish athletes who break the rules and doping shouldn't be allowed. And obviously, it doesn't work."

It's a cycle Gledhill is all too familiar with. The anti-doping business, he said, is a scientific arms race. Every time a more advanced drug test is developed, athletes come up with a more sophisticated way to cheat it.

"It's like chasing your tail, frankly. You think you've closed a loophole and then they find another one," he said. "I mean, they have their own scientists. There's so much money involved in these things. And if it's a political thing, it's a country behind you trying to do it."

Condoms, catheters and the 'Whizzinator'

In the '80s, urine tests were less sensitive and it was easier to cheat.

"Back in those days things were fairly simple," Gledhill said. "[The athletes] would flush all kinds of fluids through their system to try and wash away the traces."
68047001

Plenty of athletes have found ways of cheating on urine tests, some more sophisticated than others. (Oli Scarff/Getty Images)

When the tests got better at detecting smaller traces of performance-enhancing drugs, dopers started switching out the samples, he said.

Women would insert condoms filled with someone else's urine inside themselves, he said. Some athletes would inject clean urine into their bladders using a catheter.

Then there's the Whizzinator, a prosthetic penis that can be filled with someone else's urine. Former Minnesota Vikings running back Onterrio Smith was suspended in 2005 when authorities found one, along with several vials of dried urine, in his home. Boxer Mike Tyson has admitted using one throughout his career.
Masking the truth

As drug testers started to catch on to these cheats, athletes began using chemicals to mask the performance-enhancing drugs in their systems, Gledhill said.

A 2009 Bloomberg investigation revealed that some athletes were using common household soaps to hide their use of erythropoietin, or EPO, a naturally occurring protein that increases red blood cells and boosts endurance.

Many soaps contain protease, an enzyme that breaks down EPO. Athletes would rub a powdered version of the soap on their hands, then urinate over their fingers.

When drug testers started asking athletes to wash their hands before the tests, some men began storing powder under their foreskin, reports the Guardian.
Transfusions and injections

Blood doping — the illicit process of increasing the amount of oxygen in the bloodstream to enhance athletic performance — has a decades-long history in the athletic world.

It came to the forefront in 2012 when Lance Armstrong admitted to Oprah Winfrey that he used different blood doping methods during his cycling career.

The U.S. Anti-Doping Agency (UADA) accused Armstrong of using a variety of methods to cover up the fact that he was injecting EPO or taking transfusions of his own blood, something that is extremely hard to detect.
TV-Oprah Scores

On Jan. 14, 2013, cyclist Lance Armstrong opened up to Oprah Winfrey about his history of doping. (Harpo Studios/George Burns/Associated Press)

One of the best methods to check for transfusions or EPO is to measure hematocrit, the volume percentage of blood made up of red blood cells. But the UADA accused team doctors of injecting Armstrong with saline, or salt water, to dilute his blood.
Biological passport

In recent years, drug testers have taken a different approach, adopting something called the Athlete Biological Passport. They regularly monitor an athlete over time and map their unique physiology so that doping-related abnormalities can be flagged.

FINA adopts biological passport program
Pro tennis to combat doping with biological passport

But already, some athletes have started injecting smaller amounts of drugs over longer periods of time, a process called micro-dosing. Then there's the growing field of gene-doping, transferring genes directly into human cells to blend into an athlete's own DNA.

"So again, you work at it and you work at it and you come up with another technique," Gledhill said.
New policies, new culture

So how do we break the cycle? Jackson noted that in recent years, there has been a push for harm-reduction polices in sports.

"The idea would be to focus more on education and allowing certain types of performance enhancement, but to be done through medical professionals and in healthier ways," he said.
The Current
Leaked IAAF files rekindle argument to legalize doping in sport - August 4, 2015
00:07 20:15

Gledhill said we must work to change a deeply entrenched sports culture of winning at any cost — something he admits is easier said than done.

"Trying to change the ethics, the ethos of wanting to win in sports, it's pretty hard to do. There are always people who are willing to do just about anything."

[ohsee]

More for you Coachito, you great believer in drug tests
http://www.newsweek.com/how-do-drug-che ... -it-364691

How Do Drug Cheats in Sports Get Away With It?
By David Epstein, ProPublica and Michael J. Joyner On 8/20/15 at 5:33 PM

08_20_TrackandField_01
On August 22, the 2015 track and field world championships kick off, and some athletes who are doping will vie for medals, the author writes. Only 1 to 2 percent of tests in international Olympic sports results in sanctions each year. If doping is so rife in track and field, why are athletes penalized so rarely? Erich Schlegel/USA TODAY Sports/Reuters
Opinion
Track and Field
Sports
Doping
drug testing
IAAF
Olympics

This article first appeared on the ProPublica site.

Earlier this month, London’s Sunday Times and German broadcaster ARD published a joint investigation on doping in track and field that included an analysis of 12,000 leaked blood tests from 5,000 athletes between 2001 and 2012.

The tests had been carried out by the IAAF, track and field’s international governing body. Two respected experts in doping methods said blood tests of 800 of the athletes were “highly suggestive of doping or at the very least abnormal.”



Ten runners who won medals in endurance events at the 2012 Summer Olympics in London had suspicious test results. And a startling 80 percent of Russian medalists recorded tests that showed likely doping. The vast majority of athletes with suspicious tests were never sanctioned.

On Saturday, the 2015 track and field world championships kick off, and, of course, some athletes who are doping will vie for medals. Most will not be caught; only 1 to 2 percent of tests in international Olympic sports result in sanctions each year.

If doping is so rife in track and field, why are athletes penalized so rarely? It’s partly because many suspicious tests don’t quite reach the high evidence bar to be considered officially positive.

But it’s also because doping athletes tend to employ methods that make drug testing extremely difficult. As Paul Scott, head of Scott Analytics, which provides testing services in multiple sports, has put it, “Drug testing has a public reputation that far exceeds its capabilities.” [Coachito, i na nu kwa? You dey hear am?]

Here’s a look at why drug tests will never snare every cheater.

Looking for a (Tiny) Edge

Top-tier track and field has become so competitive that the margin of victory is often vanishingly small. In the men’s 100 meters at the last Olympics, the difference between gold and silver was .12 seconds, less than the time it would take you to blink if a flashlight were shined in your face. The difference between silver and bronze was less than half that.

The tiny gap between winning and losing has led athletes to look for what they call marginal gains, whether that comes from extra sleep, better equipment or cheating.

It also means that athletes needn’t take the industrial-strength drugs that some baseball players and Soviet bloc athletes famously took. The most popular doping agents today are synthetic versions of natural hormones: testosterone and human growth hormone—which aid muscle building and workout recovery—and EPO, which causes the body to produce more oxygen-carrying red blood cells.

Athletes have learned they can take small amounts—known as “microdosing”—to evade detection and still get the benefits.

Why Is It So Difficult to Detect?

For starters, accurately measuring the presence of tiny concentrations of drugs—particularly synthetic versions of natural hormones—is difficult. For the sake of calling a test positive, it’s even more difficult.

Consider the ubiquitous anti-doping test known as the T/E ratio. “T” is testosterone and “E” is another hormone, called epitestosterone, a natural product of steroid metabolism that provides no benefit.

Most people have a T/E ratio of 1-to-1. But there is natural variation among people, so the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) set the T/E ratio limit at 4-to-1. If a test goes above that, it is deemed suspicious, and testing for synthetic testosterone ensues.

This gives an athlete with a typical T/E ratio room to dope before hitting 4-to-1, and even small amounts of testosterone provide benefit.

To make matters worse for drug testers, for many people an elevated T/E ratio will quickly return to normal, even as the benefits of the drug are just beginning.

Christiane Ayotte, director of the WADA-accredited lab in Montreal, knows that athletes are slipping through the porous T/E screen every day. She once said that she “cannot retire until we’ve found a better probe.” This is one reason why it’s important that athletes are tested repeatedly and, ideally, outside of competition without advance notice.

Still, athletes focused on cheating can find a way. Clever dopers might add epitestosterone to the testosterone they take to keep their ratio within allowable limits. That was what made “the cream” of BALCO-scandal fame so difficult to detect.

Even if the T/E ratio test were perfect, some athletes would slip through simply because their genes alter how testosterone shows up in their urine. In these athletes, their T/E ratio wouldn’t rise even if they took testosterone, and for some, it actually falls.

In the first study documenting this, two-thirds of Koreans and 10 percent of Swedes tested had the sail-past-drug-testing physiology.

So What Can Be Done?

There’s a testing method called CIR—carbon isotope ratio testing—that does not rely on the T/E ratio and can distinguish between natural and synthetic testosterone. Ayotte has caught athletes in random testing with CIR even though they had normal T/E ratios.

CIR measures the ratio of types of carbon atoms in urine, which differs between natural and synthetic testosterone. Sprinter Justin Gatlin, a favorite to win the 100 at the world championships, was sanctioned based on a CIR test even though he didn’t go above a T/E of 4-to-1. But the CIR test is costly and laborious, so it’s typically done only to follow up a suspicious T/E ratio.

And it’s also far from foolproof. An athlete might stick to small doses because the test isn’t sensitive enough to detect the synthetic testosterone in urine at low concentrations. It’s also likely that kitchen chemists who work in sports doping are engineering synthetic testosterone with just the right ratio to beat the CIR tests.

The hope of drug testers is that by combining various testing methods they raise the chances of catching a habitual cheater.

What About the Athlete Biological Passport?

The biological passport is a newer method of doping detection that tracks particular blood variables for individual athletes over time. It debuted in 2009 and has been updated since then.

By monitoring things like the percentage of new red blood cells and the amount of oxygen-carrying hemoglobin, the passport documents physiologic trends for each athlete. In this way, a baseline profile is established—basically a minimum and maximum value for each variable for that athlete. The athlete could get in trouble if a future test shows a variable well outside the profile.

Before the passport, testers needed to detect a drug—or the chemicals that the drug breaks down into—in the body. The passport simply documents the effects of the drug. Thus, it has a longer testing window and can detect previously undetectable doping methods, like when an athlete transfuses his or her own blood.

Known as “blood doping,” athletes remove and refrigerate their blood, wait until their bodies regenerate the blood supply, then transfuse the refrigerated blood. The athlete ends up with a significant advantage: a lot more oxygen-carrying red blood cells.

Because it’s their own blood, none of the older doping tests would pick it up. The passport, though, would document the reaction of the athlete’s body. When stored blood is reinjected, the athlete’s body would ramp down production of red blood cells. If the opposite occurred—an athlete’s body produced an unusually high proportion of new red blood cells—it could indicate the use of injected EPO, which signals the body to make them.

After the biological passport was introduced in cycling, the percentage of tests that showed unusual proportions of new red blood cells was cut more than half, suggesting the test was having some deterrent effect.

Lance Armstrong famously posted a series of his drug tests from 2008 and 2009 to prove that he wasn’t doping after his comeback. He didn’t fail any single test, but taken as a timeline, the tests look like the signature of blood transfusions. (When Armstrong confessed doping to Oprah in 2013, he still denied doping post-comeback.)

OK, Then Why Wasn’t He Sanctioned?

So many devils in so many details. It is highly unlikely that Armstrong’s blood profile could’ve occurred naturally. And yet, it wasn’t so conspicuous as to reach the level required for a definitive positive.

In order for such a review to be triggered, the offending test result has to be so unusual that there’s a 99.9 percent chance that it’s a true positive. So if there’s only a 99 percent chance, that’s not good enough. This means there’s room for athletes who are very likely, but not conclusively, doping to slip through.

In one study, for example, when the 99 percent probability was used, 10 of 11 subjects who were transfusing blood as part of the anti-doping research were caught through biological passport testing. But there was also one false positive. When the probability limit was set to 99.9 percent, only eight of 11 doping subjects were caught, but with no false positives. (And these subjects weren’t making specific efforts to avoid detection, as pro athletes often do.)

Anti-doping is like the criminal justice system in the sense that it is constructed to keep the number of false positives to a minimum at the cost of letting some false negatives slip through what are, in fact, pretty big cracks.

Yikes, So Burden of Proof Is Really on Testers.

Yes, and because the passport constitutes a very indirect form of drug testing—unlike some pre-employment testing that looks for direct metabolites of drugs like cocaine—athletes get the chance to try to explain abnormal results.

And there actually are some good explanations. Blood count measurements can vary 10 percent or more just based on how hydrated an athlete is, the time of day, even the athlete’s body position during the test, not to mention training at altitude or sleeping in tents that simulate altitude.

And don’t forget natural human variation. Populations of elite athletes tend to include at least some people with a physiology that is rather extreme compared with most normal people.

For example, one recent U.S. gold medalist naturally has a T/E ratio of 11-to-1, and a cross-country skier who won seven Olympic medals famously had 50 percent more red blood cells than his peers due to a rare genetic mutation.

The line for a positive test has to be set very conservatively because we know there are natural outliers, particularly among pro competitors. Even athletes with clearly abnormal results sometimes walk away clean, and some of them actually are clean.

What About Testing for Human Growth Hormone?

Similar difficulties, only worse. Back in 2013, the NFL and the NFL players’ union were bickering over whether to implement HGH testing. Rarely discussed was the fact that the test probably wasn’t going to catch anyone anyway.

The most common test for HGH is called the “isoform test.” The isoform test looks for a ratio of different weights (or isoforms) of growth hormone in the body. One isoform weighs 20 kilodaltons and the other 22 kilodaltons. Synthetic HGH comes only in the 22-kilodalton variety. So if an athlete injects synthetic HGH, the drug throws off the ratio of isoforms in the body, and the test looks for the altered ratio.

But the ratio corrects itself in hours. Plus, to account for natural variation, the limit for a positive test is set way beyond normal, which means an athlete using HGH would have to get really unlucky with test timing to get caught. In a study, even the subjects who were intentionally doped with HGH for research did not quite reach positive-test territory.

When the NFL and the players’ union were having their spat, nobody mentioned that of 10,000 HGH tests around the world, only a dozen had come back positive. Importantly, one of those tests—a cross-country skier’s—was overturned by the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS), which handles the final appeal if an athlete contests a doping sanction.

The court deemed the “decision limit” for a positive test had not been sufficiently proved as scientifically valid. In its ruling, even the CAS panel seemed to acknowledge the skier—who had a very abnormal test result—was probably cheating. But the court wanted more scientific evidence proving that there was a 99.99 percent chance that the skier’s test was a true positive.

For HGH in particular, there is a better test called the “biomarker test,” which looks for changes in blood parameters after HGH injection. But that has generally been sparsely used due to the lack of a steady supply of testing kits.

Is There Any Hope?

Yes and no. As anti-doping authorities collect more biological passport data, they will have a better picture of what abnormal results look like and can set the bar for a positive test less conservatively. And new biological markers that can be tested for evidence of doping will surely be discovered.

But it is unlikely that anti-doping will reach the point where an athlete who is microdosing and carefully engineering his or her blood profile can’t potentially slip through unnoticed.

It helps that anti-doping authorities are constantly adding tests. Last year, biological passport profiling for steroids was added to the system that was already looking for blood doping. They’ve also employed DNA analysis to determine when athletes have submitted someone else’s urine. (Think former Minnesota Vikings running back Onterrio Smith and his “Whizzinator.”)

Plus, samples from major championships are now stored for 10 years so that they can be retested with new methods. The IAAF recently suspended 28 athletes after retesting samples from previous track and field championships. Those suspensions could result in two American athletes—Kara Goucher and Shalane Flanagan—being upgraded from 10K bronzes in the world championships and Olympics, respectively, to silvers.
Related Stories

IAAF Rejects Doping Allegations as 'Sensationalist and Confusing'
Bigger, Stronger, Faster: Doping, Training, and Human Evolution, and How Sports Change as Players Get Huge

Still, even as technology has improved, the proportion of worldwide samples that test positive remains at about 1 to 2 percent year after year. The dopers and anti-dopers may be in technological lockstep. Perhaps the greatest innovation in modern anti-doping is the rise of investigations that lead to “non-analytical positives,” as with Lance Armstrong, who liked to note that he’d never failed a test.

If you find the testing situation in Olympic sports depressing, remember that the WADA-approved testing regimen is the absolute gold standard in sports. Major League Baseball comes the closest—but not all that close—among the major pro sports leagues. The reason more athletes in those leagues aren’t being sanctioned for doping probably isn’t because it isn’t occurring.

Enjoy the game.

[Coach]

Mazi, please produce the statement by the IAAF confirming Bolt's juicing. If the only evidence against him is a plethora of posts on Cybereagles' B list forum, not even the Eaglesnest or Rant and Rave...Chai! In time, he may well be caught, if he has indeed done as OCADA (Ohsee's Cyberian Anti-doping Association) conclude. For now, he is clean, an official evidence based fact. Even the Great Mazi Ohsee cannot produce a sample from the bladder of the great Jamaican to support his claim. Retrospective testing with scientific advancements on par with the intellectual acumen of Mensaesque Mazi may catch the Jamrocker in a few years, here and now, he is a 9 times golden Olympian and cleaner than David Rocastle's Arsenal shirts, God rest his soul.

Whilst Mazi condemns the brilliance of Bolt on the basis of wisdoms way ahead of our time (equally applied to Michael Phelps, cue the forum search for the authored thread 'wink wink'), one will celebrate the indefatigable, indomitable athleticism of Mr Blackman.

When he's caught, one will shake his head in disappointment like every other. Cheers.

[ohsee]

Mazi, please produce the statement by the IAAF confirming Bolt's juicing. If the only evidence against him is a plethora of posts on Cybereagles' B list forum, not even the Eaglesnest or Rant and Rave...Chai! In time, he may well be caught, if he has indeed done as OCADA (Ohsee's Cyberian Anti-doping Association) conclude. For now, he is clean, an official evidence based fact. Even the Great Mazi Ohsee cannot produce a sample from the bladder of the great Jamaican to support his claim. Retrospective testing with scientific advancements on par with the intellectual acumen of Mensaesque Mazi may catch the Jamrocker in a few years, here and now, he is a 9 times golden Olympian and cleaner than David Rocastle's Arsenal shirts, God rest his soul.

Whilst Mazi condemns the brilliance of Bolt on the basis of wisdoms way ahead of our time (equally applied to Michael Phelps, cue the forum search for the authored thread 'wink wink'), one will celebrate the indefatigable, indomitable athleticism of Mr Blackman.

When he's caught, one will shake his head in disappointment like every other. Cheers.

Typical CE, arguing a defeated point till judgement day. Coachito did you read the posts? I thought not, because if you did, you'd be too embarrassed to post that shtuff up there.