Login required to started new threads

Login required to post replies

Prev Next
Re: Beth Mckenzie - Double Standard 101 [asianzone] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
positing here....

attempted use of the san diego mafia to sweep this under the rug but Aussie ADA was the one that caught her, not WTC doping control. If it had been the latter it's very possible this would have never been brought to light.

36 kona qualifiers 2006-'23 - 3 Kona Podiums - 4 OA IM AG wins - 5 IM AG wins - 18 70.3 AG wins
I ka nana no a 'ike -- by observing, one learns | Kulia i ka nu'u -- strive for excellence
Garmin Glycogen Use App | Garmin Fat Use App
Quote Reply
Re: Beth Mckenzie - Double Standard 101 [MarkyV] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Exactly. She would have taken a “break” from WTC races to race challenge and other events for a year or so is my guess.

Contamination issues do seem tricky, but it’s also highly suspect that the “in” drug is what people keep testing positive for due to contamination.

https://twitter.com/mungub
Quote Reply
Re: Beth Mckenzie - Double Standard 101 [mungub50] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
These salt tablets are all in the press - would not it make logical sense to avoid these specific salt tablets?

"Hey there is a PED in that granola bar. Read an article about it. (As I buy 12 boxes of those bars to eat)" then I can claim it as an accident haha makes total sense
Quote Reply
Re: Beth Mckenzie - Double Standard 101 [Twinkie] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Twinkie wrote:
These salt tablets are all in the press - would not it make logical sense to avoid these specific salt tablets?

"Hey there is a PED in that granola bar. Read an article about it. (As I buy 12 boxes of those bars to eat)" then I can claim it as an accident haha makes total sense

I guess if the Russians can open an apparently tamperproof sample bottle and refill with a clean sample under the nose of WADA, deliberately contaminating some salt tablets is probably a piece of piss.

What is Grigory Rodchenkov upto these days: must have plenty of time on his hands and no one knows where in the US he is?
Quote Reply
Re: Beth Mckenzie - Double Standard 101 [Brandes] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Brandes wrote:
This guy was just busted for it. Same excuse

https://triathlonmagazine.ca/...s-positive-ostarine/

Nearly everyone who gets busted will claim contamination, why wouldn't they? Just buy the sketchiest supplements you can find and turn them in for investigation, hope something gets found and get a reduced ban.
Quote Reply
Re: Beth Mckenzie - Double Standard 101 [iruntrails] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
iruntrails wrote:
Brandes wrote:
This guy was just busted for it. Same excuse

https://triathlonmagazine.ca/...s-positive-ostarine/


Nearly everyone who gets busted will claim contamination, why wouldn't they? Just buy the sketchiest supplements you can find and turn them in for investigation, hope something gets found and get a reduced ban.

The thing that drives me nuts about these cases is they always claim it's a well-known company, yada, yada, yada ... but no one names them for "legal reasons." Which is weird, right? Are they planning on suing them? You can certainly name a company that you are suing. There's nothing that would put you in legal jeopardy for naming a company that you have proof sold you a contaminated substance.

Did Beth sue this company? That's certainly public record.
Quote Reply
Re: Beth Mckenzie - Double Standard 101 [jeremyscarroll] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
jeremyscarroll wrote:
iruntrails wrote:
Brandes wrote:
This guy was just busted for it. Same excuse

https://triathlonmagazine.ca/...s-positive-ostarine/


Nearly everyone who gets busted will claim contamination, why wouldn't they? Just buy the sketchiest supplements you can find and turn them in for investigation, hope something gets found and get a reduced ban.

The thing that drives me nuts about these cases is they always claim it's a well-known company, yada, yada, yada ... but no one names them for "legal reasons." Which is weird, right? Are they planning on suing them? You can certainly name a company that you are suing. There's nothing that would put you in legal jeopardy for naming a company that you have proof sold you a contaminated substance.

Did Beth sue this company? That's certainly public record.

Not if settled outside of court...
Quote Reply
Re: Beth Mckenzie - Double Standard 101 [synthetic] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
If you sue, it is public record, even if you settle OOC. Most municipalities have the records available at your fingertips.
Quote Reply
Re: Beth Mckenzie - Double Standard 101 [Beautybabe] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
i have no skin in this argument, but i do have skin is on this forum. i just pulled some posts. if you want to accuse someone of something this forum disallows (without proof) you may feel free to shed your anonymity and do it on your facebook account. which doesn't typically happen, for understandable reasons. it would be wrong to assume you get a free pass to write whatever you want here.

Dan Empfield
aka Slowman
Quote Reply
Re: Beth Mckenzie - Double Standard 101 [ajthomas] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Unless they threaten to sue and there's a settlement before any action is registered.

So, do we assume that if an impacted athlete doesn't sue, they've reached some sort of settlement with the company?

If I couldn't work for two years because of someone else's negligence I'd probably sue. Why wouldn't a professional athlete?
Quote Reply
Re: Beth Mckenzie - Double Standard 101 [kiwi.] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
kiwi. wrote:
Unless they threaten to sue and there's a settlement before any action is registered.

So, do we assume that if an impacted athlete doesn't sue, they've reached some sort of settlement with the company?

If I couldn't work for two years because of someone else's negligence I'd probably sue. Why wouldn't a professional athlete?

The average triathlon "pro" makes a negative income. Maybe the athletes should pay the supplement manufacturer for saving them from two years of losses.

:)
Quote Reply
Re: Beth Mckenzie - Double Standard 101 [Arch Stanton] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Arch Stanton wrote:
kiwi. wrote:
Unless they threaten to sue and there's a settlement before any action is registered.

So, do we assume that if an impacted athlete doesn't sue, they've reached some sort of settlement with the company?

If I couldn't work for two years because of someone else's negligence I'd probably sue. Why wouldn't a professional athlete?


The average triathlon "pro" makes a negative income. Maybe the athletes should pay the supplement manufacturer for saving them from two years of losses.

:)

Seemingly it is never the average pro that gets tested though.


Save: $50 on Speed Hound Recovery Boots | $20 on Air Relax| $100 on Normatec| 15% on Most Absorbable Magnesium

Blogs: Best CHEAP Zwift / Bike Trainer Desk | Theragun G3 vs $140 Bivi Percussive Massager | Normatec Pulse 2.0 vs Normatec Pulse | Speed Hound vs Normatec | Air Relax vs Normatec | Q1 2018 Blood Test Results | | Why HED JET+ Is The BEST value wheelset
Quote Reply
Re: Beth Mckenzie - Double Standard 101 [Slowman] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
one of the athletes has stated that the tainted salt supplement was by Classified Nutrition. USADA has posted about this product: https://www.usada.org/...riskier-than-appear/

I also noticed the CarboPro’s metasalt is on the high risk list at http://www.supplement411.org/hrl

CarboPro is a popular brand that many of us on here use. This has caused me to really think twice about using their maltodextrin.
Quote Reply
Re: Beth Mckenzie - Double Standard 101 [kiwi.] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
I could be wrong but I think the chances someone gets a product liability settlement against a drug manufacturer without filing suit are 1/1000
Quote Reply
Re: Beth Mckenzie - Double Standard 101 [ajthomas] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Especially if they don’t have proof!!!
Quote Reply
Re: Beth Mckenzie - Double Standard 101 [Beautybabe] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Quote Reply
Re: Beth Mckenzie - Double Standard 101 [Ellsworth53T] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Ellsworth53T wrote:

The same Caroline Gregory I had to blow snot rockets to stop her from drafting me in a local HIM.
Quote Reply
Re: Beth Mckenzie - Double Standard 101 [jaretj] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
and that's almost the same as ingesting illegal sports enhancing drugs! Nice try dude. keep blowing snot.
Quote Reply
Re: Beth Mckenzie - Double Standard 101 [chalo] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Of course it's not the same but it's petty just like me whining about her drafting. I just did it 9 years after the fact.

The double standard applies to her as well.
Quote Reply
Re: Beth Mckenzie - Double Standard 101 [jaretj] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
So if she drafted 9 years ago she can't stand up for clean sport among the professionals now? That almost makes sense.
Quote Reply
Re: Beth Mckenzie - Double Standard 101 [chalo] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
You're putting a lot of effort into this and keep missing my point.
Quote Reply
Re: Beth Mckenzie - Double Standard 101 [jaretj] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
I found that amusing and will now use that tactic in races. Thank you.

https://twitter.com/mungub
Quote Reply
Re: Beth Mckenzie - Double Standard 101 [chalo] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
chalo wrote:
and that's almost the same as ingesting illegal sports enhancing drugs! Nice try dude. keep blowing snot.

Definitely not the same. Drafting is worse.
Quote Reply
Re: Beth Mckenzie - Double Standard 101 [eganski] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
eganski wrote:
Definitely not the same. Drafting is worse.

This debate could be its own thread. I can see it both ways. Taking performance enhancing drugs is a premeditated decision and could be argued it's worse. Drafting could be a spur of the moment poor decision (emphasis on could), but it provides an immediate quantifiable benefit. Whereas doping is harder to quantify if or how much it helped you.
Quote Reply
Re: Beth Mckenzie - Double Standard 101 [rob_bell] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
rob_bell wrote:

I also noticed the CarboPro’s metasalt is on the high risk list at http://www.supplement411.org/hrl

CarboPro is a popular brand that many of us on here use. This has caused me to really think twice about using their maltodextrin.



I think it's worth mentioning the text of that entry, though:

Quote:
Testing of an open container of an illegible Lot number revealed the presence of ostarine.


I'd be kind of pissed if I were CarboPro. And by kinda pissed I mean livid. I'd have thought that either an opened container *or* scratched out lot # would disqualify it from being publicly shamed in this list. Apparently not.

(And I'm a huge fan of this list in general).

Edit: And I sure hope someone didn't get any kind of reduced sanction for providing an open container with scratched-out lot #. That'd be a joke.


It seems suggested practice for pros is:

1) Clean pros: acquire two bottles of everything with the same lot #, and leave one bottle unopened and stored somewhere safe.

2) Dirty pros: Upon opening a bottle, sprinkle your "gear" on top of it, and scratch out the lot #, store somewhere safe.
Last edited by: trail: Jun 14, 18 7:03
Quote Reply

Prev Next