Author Topic: Doping?  (Read 716 times)

Tigerrr

  • That England that was wont to conquer others Hath made a shameful conquest of itself.
  • Not really a Tiger.
    • Humanist Celebrant.
Doping?
« on: August 24, 2012, 02:23:29 pm »
As Lance Armstrongs brand collapses in on itself and everyone realises they've been had, its hard not to cast an eye in the direction of teh Olympics stars.
Lances story shopws how the tests can be dodged and shows that 'I never tested positive' is code for 'I doped up to the test level'.
Everyone expects the Chinese to be doped,  but the tarnish of Lances fall from grace must surely raise questions about other inspirational athletes.
Team GBs results were very good this time round...
Humanists UK Funeral and Wedding Celebrant. Trying for godless goodness.
http://humanist.org.uk/michaellaird

LittleWheelsandBig

  • Whimsy Rider
Re: Doping?
« Reply #1 on: August 24, 2012, 03:00:25 pm »
'I never tested positive' is code for 'you never caught me' or 'you never charged me when you did catch me'. Nothing to do with doping up to test limits.
Wheel meet again, don't know where, don't know when...

Re: Doping?
« Reply #2 on: August 24, 2012, 03:45:09 pm »
Hmm, begins to sound like a mediaeval test for witches - if you float you're a witch, if you sink you drown an innocent person. So all athletes should be asked "have you tested positive for doping yet". Those that answer yes fail, and those
that answer no fail on the basis they've obviously just not been caught yet.  ;)
We are making a New World (Paul Nash, 1918)

simonp

  • Omnomnomnipotent.
Re: Doping?
« Reply #3 on: August 24, 2012, 03:49:45 pm »
Hmm, begins to sound like a mediaeval test for witches - if you float you're a witch, if you sink you drown an innocent person. So all athletes should be asked "have you tested positive for doping yet". Those that answer yes fail, and those
that answer no fail on the basis they've obviously just not been caught yet.  ;)

No, it sounds like people being unwilling to accept the truth of Armstrong's guilt. The 1999 samples retrospectively tested positive - very strongly positive - for EPO. This wasn't about doping 'within the limits'. EPO doping was illegal back then, but there wasn't a test available yet. The fact it couldn't yet be detected doesn't make it 'OK' or 'only cheating a little bit'.