Of course not…but you are far less likely to have a problem with a pharmaceutical than you are with a supplement because there IS regulatory oversight.
yes and no…if you set limits, you are setting a level where everything under it is acceptable, which leads to micro-dosing or working out timing on tests to drop below levels, etc.
Oh absolutely, but as taken from that article:
“This is our sixth no-fault case in just one year, meaning that yet another athlete has been unjustly charged with a violation and publicly recognized for ingesting a prohibited substance from a completely innocent source, such as contaminated medication, meat, or water, and despite there being no effect on performance,” said Travis T. Tygart, Chief Executive Officer of USADA. “USADA strongly objects to this requirement under the rules and will continue to urge WADA to reform the system to be fairer for athletes.”
There has to be a middle ground, because all the listed “innocent” sources covers a lot of stuff we’re all exposed to everyday, and the zero tolerance leads to examples like above, and if the athlete can’t provide one of those sources (in some case months down the road) then they’re screwed.
The list of people who have initially Vehemently denied doping only later either proven to or admit to having doped is a lot longer than those that have been wrongfully found guilty. So i think the initial reactions of assuming she’s a liar are well justified. Armstrong, Clemens, A-Rod all come to mind.
That’s not fair either then, and it might as well be mob rule or based on a popularity contest. Most of them were well documented a-holes so of course people were happy to see them get torn down.
I find it hard to lump someone who first passed clean, then 5 months later the sample didn’t, and to prove her innocence, has to produce (potentially perishable) evidence from 5 months ago, into that category.
I don’t think anyone has even reported on the amount. In a zero tolerance spec, it could be some insanely inane amount or some massive dose.
She could be lying, or she could be telling the truth. I’m not in a position to judge, so I’m not going to draw a line in the sand and start throwing stones. Especially because I think in the US Court system, outside WADA’s umbrella, this would probably be an easy case to toss out.
But the avg racer who test positive might not have funds to defend themselves
Ah clenbuterol. That’s where Bertie claimed his came from too, a rest day BBQ in his case.
Didn’t explain where the plasticisers in the same sample came from though…
Isn’t the problem with getting rid of the rules for trace amounts that it means athletes could get away with microdosing more easily, or that they are less likely to be caught for stuff they’d taken a long while before.
Specifically in Contador’s case I mentioned above the most likely explanation seems to be that he infused some blood on a rest day and the blood contained some tiny amount of clenbuterol because he was taking that when the blood was taken.
Thought it was the US that pumped the animals full with every product available 
Hey, compared to many countries the US regulation around food etc ain’t all that
The zero tolerance policy catches cheats. If you want to believe that the poor innocent athletes are being forced to eat “street food” stuffed full of anti-doping violations, then that’s a fantasy world you’re welcome to but I’m not interested.
It’s absolute horseshit that athletes accidentally dope. This urban myth needs to be cancelled.
Amen!
Can you elaborate on this?
What dish? What substance?
You can choose to not believe me or anyone else. I really don’t care. But if you believe no one has ever tested positive that didn’t dope I have ocean front property to sell you in Nevada.
Clenbuterol. Was in some sort of beef dish at a hotel they were staying at. I don’t know the exact meal. In other countries clenbuterol is used in cattle farming and trace amounts make it into the food stream.
I feel like she probably knew which “supplements” she was taking hehe
Saw this posted on another forum. This seems to suggest that this positive test is retribution for a complaint against a UCI member. This is now just getting weird.
Are there studies where someone clean eats a hormone-reared burger, or has a contaminated protein drink, with blood tests before and after? How much of that stuff do you have to consume, and for how long can you detect it?
Have to say, the accuracy of those tests blows my mind a bit, if the trace amounts in a single meat dish can be detected.
Alternatively, what would that mean for people who eat meat like that regularly? If a single meal leads to detectable amounts, how much of that stuff would accumulate in the body if you had one every day?
I think people are giving wayyyy too much the benefit of the doubt here, and vastly underestimate the prevalence of PED use. Tainted meat seems very unlikely when facing the actual facts of professional athletics.
Anonymous surveys of elite athletes show OVER 57% ADMITTED to doping in just the past year (I assume that many more use but wouldn’t admit to it), where only 0.5% are caught. Simply put doping tests are more IQ tests than actual drug controls, and testing is far too expensive to actually work in most organizations.
source: Doping in Two Elite Athletics Competitions Assessed by Randomized-Response Surveys | SpringerLink
I’d be interested to know what those PEDs they’re using are. But I’m not going to pay to find out if the rest of the article goes into it.
That’s sobering but, not surprising after the last number of years observing human behavior in the US. Meaning, it sure seems like most people will justify ****ing over a fellow human if they “believe” they are justified (rights, liberty, religion, etc…). IMO there is no way the human race survives another 200 years. I hope we will and innovation is the unknown. But, man are we just intelligent enough to be dangerous. We can be so evil and noble at the same time it’s fascinating. Ego perhaps?
For those of us who are clean it sure would be useful to know exactly what caused the positive so we can take away something useful.