More Mexicans popped for clenbuterol

[Marchegiano]

[QUOTE=Koba-Grozny;20170933]The issue here - as with Canelo - is that they simply can't tell. It ain't, despite what Benson says, that they think it is down to tainted meat so much as that it's impossible to prove that it isn't and they've elected to err on the side of protecting the innocent from unfair punishment.

Well, trace amounts is trace amounts. I assume they give the fighters benefit of doubt because the levels are in-line with the excuse given; drugged meat.

Assuming the amounts fit the drugged meat story and no one's lied about the lack of benefit that lows amount would be, what difference does it really make if they ate drugged meat or just halfassed their PEDs? Practically the same thing isn't it?



The bold is what I find very interesting. Very, very interesting. There's very few studies to verify PEDs do what is claimed they do. The way drugs get banned from sports application is by popular belief. I forget their exact wording, you could look it up, but I promise across the board what you'll read at UKAD and VADA etc's sites is basically they ban any substance that is popular among athletes that the athletes believe gives them an advantage.

It's really systematically out to get people. If they have money they can take the case to court and probably do well given drugs are made to heal sick people not make athletes inhumans. One can always hire an expert to speculate against the VADA or whatever doctors and win a case. Basically what happened with Pov and Rybinski.

But most people don't have money like that.

Also, given the tests pick up drugged meat levels they're pretty sensitive or strict I reckon. If it's such a low level it only alludes to a time when you were enhanced...seems like a system out to get people with their only recourse being money might save their ass.

Canelo, okay, there's money behind him but Martinez and Vargas are hardly household names. I am curious why a system so set up to catch people is all of a sudden very relaxed with this mexican beef.

[DaNeutral.]

And this is why i cant take the WBC and their pathetic stance on Dillian Whyte seriously. Its quite clear that they are just helping Wilder run away from that fight. The WBC are so inconsistent they expose themselves as a corrupt dodgy fishy double standard joke.

[MrRolltide91]

Lmao......

[Citizen Koba]

[QUOTE=Marchegiano;20171329]

The issue here - as with Canelo - is that they simply can't tell. It ain't, despite what Benson says, that they think it is down to tainted meat so much as that it's impossible to prove that it isn't and they've elected to err on the side of protecting the innocent from unfair punishment.

Well, trace amounts is trace amounts. I assume they give the fighters benefit of doubt because the levels are in-line with the excuse given; drugged meat.

Assuming the amounts fit the drugged meat story and no one's lied about the lack of benefit that lows amount would be, what difference does it really make if they ate drugged meat or just halfassed their PEDs? Practically the same thing isn't it?



The bold is what I find very interesting. Very, very interesting. There's very few studies to verify PEDs do what is claimed they do. The way drugs get banned from sports application is by popular belief. I forget their exact wording, you could look it up, but I promise across the board what you'll read at UKAD and VADA etc's sites is basically they ban any substance that is popular among athletes that the athletes believe gives them an advantage.

It's really systematically out to get people. If they have money they can take the case to court and probably do well given drugs are made to heal sick people not make athletes inhumans. One can always hire an expert to speculate against the VADA or whatever doctors and win a case. Basically what happened with Pov and Rybinski.

But most people don't have money like that.

Also, given the tests pick up drugged meat levels they're pretty sensitive or strict I reckon. If it's such a low level it only alludes to a time when you were enhanced...seems like a system out to get people with their only recourse being money might save their ass.

Canelo, okay, there's money behind him but Martinez and Vargas are hardly household names. I am curious why a system so set up to catch people is all of a sudden very relaxed with this mexican beef.

Two separate issues here, both interesting and both kinda relevant so I'll deal with the easiest first.

Simply put, nah, trace is not trace - that's some political level obfuscation bullchit from the WBC based on exactly the assumption you made. Yeah, technically anything measured in concentrations of ng or pg/ml could be described as 'trace' so they can't outright be called liars, but the devil's in the detail.

Most of us would understand trace to mean 'close to minimum threshold of detectability' or 'an insignificant amount' but they used the same term 'trace' to describe an amount a couple of orders of magnitude above the detectability level and several times higher than that found in most cases of presumaed contamination to describe Canelo's 600pg/ml level so I'd be extremely sceptical of their use of the same term here.

Secondly to establish whether enough was taken to be of benefit one obviously needs to know how much of the substance was taken in the first place... except you can't do that with a positive Clenbuterol result, because the concentration levels in urine are dependent on two factors; the amount initially taken and the time elapsed since it entered the body. If you don't know when the drug was taken you can't tell from a urine test how much was taken, at least for Clenbuterol which doesn't produce any measurable metabolites for a ratio comparison.

Typically drug metabolism and elimination can be described as half life (similar to how you'd describe radioactive decay) ie, in a certain period the measureable concentration of a drug or it's metabolites in the body will have halved. For clenbuterol this period is about 35 - 36 hours in humans.... the upshot of which that a the****utic (PED use) dose taken a couple of weeks prior will give exactly the the same urinary concentration as a meat contamination dose consumed a coupla days before the test. There is no way to distinguish using currently available methods.

The upshot is that when they say there wasn't enough to produce any measurable benefit they're talking out of their asses because there's no way of knowing how much Clen these guys took... and the WBC know that full well.



The second - and equally interesting issue is the question of just how beneficial the various banned substances are - how this was established and the various contradictions which become apparent when you examine the drug testing policies and protocol more closely...

I ain't gonna go into it properly now since I already wrote an extempore essay above and I ain't got much time, but suffice to say it's just as beset with bullchit, contradictions and lack of clarity as your average nation's illicit drug legislation and substance abuse policies, entangling pseudo moral judgements with half assed assumptions about health and safety and all pandering to public opinion and political expedience.


Let's just say there is indeed good reason to question whether many of the banned substances provide any significant competitive in boxing and the idea of having one set of standards and protocols across a multitude of vastly different sports doesn't seem to me at least to make a great deal of sense.

[Thuglife Nelo]

Two separate issues here, both interesting and both kinda relevant so I'll deal with the easiest first.

Simply put, nah, trace is not trace - that's some political level obfuscation bullchit from the WBC based on exactly the assumption you made. Yeah, technically anything measured in concentrations of ng or pg/ml could be described as 'trace' so they can't outright be called liars, but the devil's in the detail.

Most of us would understand trace to mean 'close to minimum threshold of detectability' or 'an insignificant amount' but they used the same term 'trace' to describe an amount a couple of orders of magnitude above the detectability level and several times higher than that found in most cases of presumaed contamination to describe Canelo's 600pg/ml level so I'd be extremely sceptical of their use of the same term here.

Secondly to establish whether enough was taken to be of benefit one obviously needs to know how much of the substance was taken in the first place... except you can't do that with a positive Clenbuterol result, because the concentration levels in urine are dependent on two factors; the amount initially taken and the time elapsed since it entered the body. If you don't know when the drug was taken you can't tell from a urine test how much was taken, at least for Clenbuterol which doesn't produce any measurable metabolites for a ratio comparison.

Typically drug metabolism and elimination can be described as half life (similar to how you'd describe radioactive decay) ie, in a certain period the measureable concentration of a drug or it's metabolites in the body will have halved. For clenbuterol this period is about 35 - 36 hours in humans.... the upshot of which that a the****utic (PED use) dose taken a couple of weeks prior will give exactly the the same urinary concentration as a meat contamination dose consumed a coupla days before the test. There is no way to distinguish using currently available methods.

The upshot is that when they say there wasn't enough to produce any measurable benefit they're talking out of their asses because there's no way of knowing how much Clen these guys took... and the WBC know that full well.



The second - and equally interesting issue is the question of just how beneficial the various banned substances are - how this was established and the various contradictions which become apparent when you examine the drug testing policies and protocol more closely...

I ain't gonna go into it properly now since I already wrote an extempore essay above and I ain't got much time, but suffice to say it's just as beset with bullchit, contradictions and lack of clarity as your average nation's illicitl drug legislation and substance abuse policies, entangling pseudo moral judgements with half assed assumption about health and safety and all pandering to public opinion and political expedience.


Let's just say

None of this matters. The real questions should be towards the WBC-CBP and how they measure cases whereas USADA has exonerated athletes for Clen with meat contamination. Many of them are no name athletes so why would USADA do any favors for them? The reality is everything is case by case, but when it was Canelo Alvarez it was ''Strict Liability'' and it didn't matter how even a judicial type of system and case for others were more tolerable.

Again, Francisco Vargas under Conte, exempt. Vargas takes a stateside test before going to Mexico, tests negative. Yet tests positive the week he arrives in Mexico. It's as if VADA were naïve that Conte sent Vargas out there intentionally? Yet you had LDBC phaggots saying Mikey Garcia was dirty because he was associated with Conte. But mention Andrade, Plant, Haney, Jrock, etc... these phaggots don't respond. cowards. This type of selective phaggotry is the same thing guys say to discredit Canelo.

Erik Morales, allowed to fight Danny Garcia same week he had a trace, Garcia's didn't care.

Again, you guys should be asking, will reporters in the game, whom trolled CLen, ask the WBC CBP why they would exempt others with Clen?

It makes absolutely no sense. Conflicts of interest. If you deny the WBC belt and youre a boxing superstar, expect retaliation from Sulaiman. Isn't it obvious?

[Citizen Koba]

None of this matters. The real questions should be towards the WBC-CBP and how they measure cases whereas USADA has exonerated athletes for Clen with meat contamination. Many of them are no name athletes so why would USADA do any favors for them? The reality is everything is case by case, but when it was Canelo Alvarez it was ''Strict Liability'' and it didn't matter how even a judicial type of system and case for others were more tolerable.

Again, Francisco Vargas under Conte, exempt. Vargas takes a stateside test before going to Mexico, tests negative. Yet tests positive the week he arrives in Mexico. It's as if VADA were naïve that Conte sent Vargas out there intentionally? Yet you had LDBC phaggots saying Mikey Garcia was dirty because he was associated with Conte. But mention Andrade, Plant, Haney, Jrock, etc... these phaggots don't respond. cowards. This type of selective phaggotry is the same thing guys say to discredit Canelo.

Erik Morales, allowed to fight Danny Garcia same week he had a trace, Garcia's didn't care.

Again, you guys should be asking, will reporters in the game, whom trolled CLen, ask the WBC CBP why they would exempt others with Clen?

It makes absolutely no sense. Conflicts of interest. If you deny the WBC belt and youre a boxing superstar, expect retaliation from Sulaiman. Isn't it obvious?

Still ****ing that drum, huh? Honestly man, I don't know, people are inconsistent, organisations are inconsistent, policies change over time and people bow to expedience and circumstance. I can't deny the possibility that there's something in your theories but I can tell you that they will never be more then speculative unless someone in the know comes out to confirm 'em. As it is I can think of half a dozen alternate hypotheses to explain the apparent contradiction without taxing my brain for more than a few moments.


Ummm.


And nor does any of what you've just said render my previous reply irrelevant as you suggest.

[Thuglife Nelo]

Still ****ing that drum, huh?

Me? nah I just like the latest movie trailers by the WBC-CBP in which this thread is referring to.

[anonymous2.0]

I still think going to Mexico and opening a clen free cattle ranch and marketing it as such, especially to athletes, would be a good business.

[Marchegiano]

[QUOTE=Koba-Grozny;20171881]

Two separate issues here, both interesting and both kinda relevant so I'll deal with the easiest first.

Simply put, nah, trace is not trace - that's some political level obfuscation bullchit from the WBC based on exactly the assumption you made. Yeah, technically anything measured in concentrations of ng or pg/ml could be described as 'trace' so they can't outright be called liars, but the devil's in the detail.

Most of us would understand trace to mean 'close to minimum threshold of detectability' or 'an insignificant amount' but they used the same term 'trace' to describe an amount a couple of orders of magnitude above the detectability level and several times higher than that found in most cases of presumaed contamination to describe Canelo's 600pg/ml level so I'd be extremely sceptical of their use of the same term here.

Secondly to establish whether enough was taken to be of benefit one obviously needs to know how much of the substance was taken in the first place... except you can't do that with a positive Clenbuterol result, because the concentration levels in urine are dependent on two factors; the amount initially taken and the time elapsed since it entered the body. If you don't know when the drug was taken you can't tell from a urine test how much was taken, at least for Clenbuterol which doesn't produce any measurable metabolites for a ratio comparison.

Typically drug metabolism and elimination can be described as half life (similar to how you'd describe radioactive decay) ie, in a certain period the measureable concentration of a drug or it's metabolites in the body will have halved. For clenbuterol this period is about 35 - 36 hours in humans.... the upshot of which that a the****utic (PED use) dose taken a couple of weeks prior will give exactly the the same urinary concentration as a meat contamination dose consumed a coupla days before the test. There is no way to distinguish using currently available methods.

The upshot is that when they say there wasn't enough to produce any measurable benefit they're talking out of their asses because there's no way of knowing how much Clen these guys took... and the WBC know that full well.



The second - and equally interesting issue is the question of just how beneficial the various banned substances are - how this was established and the various contradictions which become apparent when you examine the drug testing policies and protocol more closely...

I ain't gonna go into it properly now since I already wrote an extempore essay above and I ain't got much time, but suffice to say it's just as beset with bullchit, contradictions and lack of clarity as your average nation's illicit drug legislation and substance abuse policies, entangling pseudo moral judgements with half assed assumptions about health and safety and all pandering to public opinion and political expedience.


Let's just say there is indeed good reason to question whether many of the banned substances provide any significant competitive in boxing and the idea of having one set of standards and protocols across a multitude of vastly different sports doesn't seem to me at least to make a great deal of sense.

****, well shut my mouth

Makes total sense, very informative.

[1hourRun]

Two separate issues here, both interesting and both kinda relevant so I'll deal with the easiest first.

Simply put, nah, trace is not trace - that's some political level obfuscation bullchit from the WBC based on exactly the assumption you made. Yeah, technically anything measured in concentrations of ng or pg/ml could be described as 'trace' so they can't outright be called liars, but the devil's in the detail.

Most of us would understand trace to mean 'close to minimum threshold of detectability' or 'an insignificant amount' but they used the same term 'trace' to describe an amount a couple of orders of magnitude above the detectability level and several times higher than that found in most cases of presumaed contamination to describe Canelo's 600pg/ml level so I'd be extremely sceptical of their use of the same term here.

Secondly to establish whether enough was taken to be of benefit one obviously needs to know how much of the substance was taken in the first place... except you can't do that with a positive Clenbuterol result, because the concentration levels in urine are dependent on two factors; the amount initially taken and the time elapsed since it entered the body. If you don't know when the drug was taken you can't tell from a urine test how much was taken, at least for Clenbuterol which doesn't produce any measurable metabolites for a ratio comparison.

Typically drug metabolism and elimination can be described as half life (similar to how you'd describe radioactive decay) ie, in a certain period the measureable concentration of a drug or it's metabolites in the body will have halved. For clenbuterol this period is about 35 - 36 hours in humans.... the upshot of which that a the****utic (PED use) dose taken a couple of weeks prior will give exactly the the same urinary concentration as a meat contamination dose consumed a coupla days before the test. There is no way to distinguish using currently available methods.

The upshot is that when they say there wasn't enough to produce any measurable benefit they're talking out of their asses because there's no way of knowing how much Clen these guys took... and the WBC know that full well.



The second - and equally interesting issue is the question of just how beneficial the various banned substances are - how this was established and the various contradictions which become apparent when you examine the drug testing policies and protocol more closely...

I ain't gonna go into it properly now since I already wrote an extempore essay above and I ain't got much time, but suffice to say it's just as beset with bullchit, contradictions and lack of clarity as your average nation's illicit drug legislation and substance abuse policies, entangling pseudo moral judgements with half assed assumptions about health and safety and all pandering to public opinion and political expedience.


Let's just say there is indeed good reason to question whether many of the banned substances provide any significant competitive in boxing and the idea of having one set of standards and protocols across a multitude of vastly different sports doesn't seem to me at least to make a great deal of sense.

A solid argument that 'Trace' amounts of Clen, can be/is being exploited by cheaters.