Tweet
There is very little chance of you actually responding the reply I've produced here. Partly because it will emotionally scar you and partly because you're an idiot. Anyhow, enjoy :-]
As usual...GGG/Pacstan are Wrong. Again. And Again. And Again.
You cite an article from BloodyElbow that uses two "scientific" articles to support their assertion that hair cannot be used to test people for Clenbuterol. They are both legitimate scientific journals, but there are huge GLARING problems with BLH and their ability to understand science.
Also, before I dive in please remember that BLH/BloodyElbow as well as WonderWhiteBreadMan Stephen E (of this website) are extremely biased especially of white fighters. This is a long-running theme on their articles and I can prove that with "evidence" in a completely different discussion.
The first article used over at white-loving BloodyElbow cites an article from Clinical Chemistry (a real, legitimate journal of chemistry) which is from 1996. There's a reason scientists use "recent findings" to further their own understanding of matters...namely technology. The equipment used to analyze anything in 1996 is likely so outdated that it's findings are irrelevant.
Here's a simple picture of a 1996 cell phone:
Taking a picture, recording audio, and doing ANY kind of measurement with THAT phone would produce completely useless data compared to a phone you purchase at ANY store today. (This is probably beyond your understanding, but try hard)
Let's talk about this 1996 study further and I'll explain why it's not remotely reliable...
Now let's look at the second study which appears to be professionally conducted by contemporary standards...probably because it's from 2014. Anyhow, it's a great study albeit using a small pool of participants. Nonetheless the findings were suggestive of potential application:
That's odd. Why would you (a Canelo dick sucking faggot and GGG nut worshipper) post a link that cites an article suggesting Clenbuterol hair follicle tests are effective for detecting "typical abuse of Clenbuterol" and suggesting "real doping control samples can be evaluated" so long as the concentration is not less than 20pg/mL?
Canelo's two failed tests were deemed "indicative of contaminated meat" by WADA lab director that collected the sample were recorded at 0.6-0.8ng/ml (which is 600-800pg/ml) and two days later 0.06-0.08ng/ml (which is 60-80pg/mL) and the study that YOU posted suggested it's chromatography technology could accurately, reliably, and validly detect clenbuterol using hair follices in samples equal to or greater than 0.02pg/mL (or 20ng/mL).
There's no debate Clenbuterol existed in Canelo's system - that's indisputable. That debate exists whether it was the result of ingested meat (via Mexican cattle contamination) or if it was intentionally used for PED purposes.
Let's remember the hair follicle test only ever happened at the request of the NSAC. Canelo didn't run, whine, and cry that this test would prove his innocence. He was merely complying with NSAC requests which - again - does support his stance of being innocent since he was #1 willing to take the test and #2 tested negative. Thirdly, Canelo has never tested positive before and he's had OSDT for at least four fights in his career: Austin Trout, Floyd Mayweather, GGG1, GGG2, and there's another I can't think of atm (and those are just the ones I KNOW about...possibly more).
Canelo's performance following 2nd fight (after being caught using PED's) was better (not worse) than his performance in the 1st fight. So, now off the PED's, Canelo did better? What? Yeah, he was never on PED's.
Hi SocialCucky
As usual...GGG/Pacstan are Wrong. Again. And Again. And Again.
You cite an article from BloodyElbow that uses two "scientific" articles to support their assertion that hair cannot be used to test people for Clenbuterol. They are both legitimate scientific journals, but there are huge GLARING problems with BLH and their ability to understand science.
Also, before I dive in please remember that BLH/BloodyElbow as well as WonderWhiteBreadMan Stephen E (of this website) are extremely biased especially of white fighters. This is a long-running theme on their articles and I can prove that with "evidence" in a completely different discussion.
The first article used over at white-loving BloodyElbow cites an article from Clinical Chemistry (a real, legitimate journal of chemistry) which is from 1996. There's a reason scientists use "recent findings" to further their own understanding of matters...namely technology. The equipment used to analyze anything in 1996 is likely so outdated that it's findings are irrelevant.
Here's a simple picture of a 1996 cell phone:
Taking a picture, recording audio, and doing ANY kind of measurement with THAT phone would produce completely useless data compared to a phone you purchase at ANY store today. (This is probably beyond your understanding, but try hard)
Let's talk about this 1996 study further and I'll explain why it's not remotely reliable...
- Don't cry:
* Men and women of different ages...unknown if they are white/black/Hispanic/Asian/etc...metabolism differs depending on race/ethnicity
* No weights given...at all...yet ALL MEDICINE is prescribed/dosed by weight...(you probably don't know what this means so I'll dumb it down for you)...
Two people receive 10mg of X. Person 1 weighs 40kg and Person 2 weighs 80kg. Person 1 is likely to experience twice the concentration and Person 2...medicinally Person 1 would receive 0.5 dosage compared to Person 2 1.0 dosage. (Try hard to understand)
* Zero discussion of technology used...method explained (very poorly), but theirs no discussion about the specific equipment and whether that equipment has produced Accurate/Valid results (accuracy and validity are different - again, this is probably all new information for you) with other substances...
* We don't know anything about the health status of participants. If half the participant pool had major health conditions (such as kidney impairment or cardiovascular disease) their metabolism is greatly different than a "normal health individual" and would produce skewed values of any substance (Clenbuterol or other)...(again, you don't know what any of this means since you're a GGG/Pacstan)
*The best part of all this is that the GGG nuthuggers over at BloodyElbow even acknowledge the concept of "unreliability", but fail to understand why one of their cited sources could be "unreliable"...
Now let's look at the second study which appears to be professionally conducted by contemporary standards...probably because it's from 2014. Anyhow, it's a great study albeit using a small pool of participants. Nonetheless the findings were suggestive of potential application:
That's odd. Why would you (a Canelo dick sucking faggot and GGG nut worshipper) post a link that cites an article suggesting Clenbuterol hair follicle tests are effective for detecting "typical abuse of Clenbuterol" and suggesting "real doping control samples can be evaluated" so long as the concentration is not less than 20pg/mL?
Canelo's two failed tests were deemed "indicative of contaminated meat" by WADA lab director that collected the sample were recorded at 0.6-0.8ng/ml (which is 600-800pg/ml) and two days later 0.06-0.08ng/ml (which is 60-80pg/mL) and the study that YOU posted suggested it's chromatography technology could accurately, reliably, and validly detect clenbuterol using hair follices in samples equal to or greater than 0.02pg/mL (or 20ng/mL).
There's no debate Clenbuterol existed in Canelo's system - that's indisputable. That debate exists whether it was the result of ingested meat (via Mexican cattle contamination) or if it was intentionally used for PED purposes.
Let's remember the hair follicle test only ever happened at the request of the NSAC. Canelo didn't run, whine, and cry that this test would prove his innocence. He was merely complying with NSAC requests which - again - does support his stance of being innocent since he was #1 willing to take the test and #2 tested negative. Thirdly, Canelo has never tested positive before and he's had OSDT for at least four fights in his career: Austin Trout, Floyd Mayweather, GGG1, GGG2, and there's another I can't think of atm (and those are just the ones I KNOW about...possibly more).
Canelo's performance following 2nd fight (after being caught using PED's) was better (not worse) than his performance in the 1st fight. So, now off the PED's, Canelo did better? What? Yeah, he was never on PED's.
Hi SocialCucky
Someone just recently told me that global warming is fake because if all the ice melts then, just like in a cup, the volume of water goes down.
Lmfao. That's you.
You're so pathetic that I cant even lmfao. And with the cell phone! Plenty of instruments were and have been used pre 1996 that's relevant today lmfao.
Oh my god.
Comment