What? What does that even mean? Are you just trying to sound smart? First of all, there are known sets of chemicals in performance enhancing drugs, such as anabolic steroids. What the hell do you mean there are no specific chemicals in performance enhancing drugs? Of course there are, do you think you could just mix a bunch of random chemicals together and make a performance enhancement drug? http://www.wisegeek.com/what-are-performance-enhancing-drugs.htm http://www.treatment4addiction.com/addiction/other/performance-enhancing-drugs/ Read and educate yourself. Also, THIS is what you said. You said, right here, that if people create their own performance enhancing drugs it will never show up as positive in a test. Is this not what you said? This is what I'm getting from you, you are covering your ears and basically yelling out a bunch of random crap.
^^ You continue to **** on yourself man. "As technologies continue to develop, however, the job of determining whether an athlete has taken performance enhancing drugs becomes more and more difficult. In 1999, the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) was created to better coordinate drug testing and punishment. WADA is dedicated to tracking new drugs and developing tests to prevent them from reaching widespread use." "tracking new drugs"...the part you don't understand. Today's drug tests are very limited and only detect what is known. You blatantly dismiss it and the post an article that says it, hilarious. Seriously, just give it up dude.
I mean you take words like "embarassing" in your mouth, make naive/wrong statements about doping and doping tests. Then to prove your point you post a link that confirms my statements about drug tests being far too limited and not detecting every kind of doping. If my posts, who by the way are backed up by your link, are embarassing, how embarassing is it to attack someone and post an article that basically in the last part trashes your whole construcgt of posts and proves mine?
Are you serious? You are just going to flat out change your point? THIS is what you said: Which was in response to your previous but equally embarrassing statement of How do you get through these mental gymnastics?
Let me break it down for you as simple as possible because you can't even grasp your own point. YOU said that the majority of athletes in the world are doped. Thus, you are implying that drug tests are not only ineffective, but practically useless because much more than half the people tested are not correctly assessed. That is full r****d number 1. Then, you said that if you make your own enhancement drug it will NEVER show up as positive in a test. That is full r****d number 2 and 3. Firstly, do you think it's that easy to simply make a drug that could bypass drug tests? So simple that the majority of the athletes apparently have it? Second, do you think just because you make your own drug you can bypass the drug test?
^^ Your make the most embarassing and illogical series of posts possible, it's horrible. You join a topic which you know nothing about, start an unjustified rant and insults based on you having no knowledge of the topic. Then trying to prove your point you post a link but are too incompetent to read it in full detail, missing out the part that says ""As technologies continue to develop, however, the job of determining whether an athlete has taken performance enhancing drugs becomes more and more difficult. In 1999, the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) was created to better coordinate drug testing and punishment. WADA is dedicated to tracking new drugs and developing tests to prevent them from reaching widespread use." That quote indicates that the WADA faces trouble with modern doping because their test can only detect documented kinds of doping and has to TRACK new ones AND develop NEW tests to be able to detect new doping. This is essentially 100% what I said but you miss it and blindly post it. You get called out on it by me and then start another embarassing and idiotic post saying I am the one changing his point now, do you realize how wrong and stupid that sounds? I never changed my point because you moronically proved it with your OWN link. To add you now call me retarted for saying majority isn't getting caught because their doping can't be detected by today's tests, again, your own source backed me up, how can you dismiss that? For the 3rd time, in hope you read your own source that seemingly was credible and sound enough for you to post it here: "As technologies continue to develop, however, the job of determining whether an athlete has taken performance enhancing drugs becomes more and more difficult. In 1999, the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) was created to better coordinate drug testing and punishment. WADA is dedicated to tracking new drugs and developing tests to prevent them from reaching widespread use." That quote 100% backs up what I say about modern doping tests and it's struggles, and that they have to track new drugs and develop suited tests for them, because the current ones are failing to detect them. Seriously, if you say I changed my point you must be the most stubborn or stupid person ever to engange in an argument. There wasn't even a necessity to reply to your posts with the link, you destroyed every post you made about doping with your own link, it's just plain sad. Wrapping it all up with fake-intellect and insulting remarks is even more petty, seeing how you fail to see that your own links contradict your posts and back mine up, and then blindly saying I switch points while I never did, because it was just completely backed up by yourself. Please do yourself and stop posting on this topic, if you are too stupid to accept that you are wrong it's not my problem.
High School comprehension from a person who still types like he is in high school. The quote states that it is becoming MORE difficult as new drugs are being developed, THAT is true in all regards. However, nowhere does it back up this statement right here. Where, in the quote, does it say that drug tests can never detect new drugs? In fact, why don't you go ahead and tell me where in the article it reinforces this statement below. According to you, the majority of athletes are doped, which means drug tests are incompetent and ineffective to say the least. Why don't you calm down for a second, gather up your facts, and show me where in the article it implies drug tests are failing more than half the time to detect users?
Okay that is too much. You basically want WADA to admit that their tests are struggling really hard and are behind the times. You make the most naive posts on doping that I've ever seen. Please save the words and let this be the last post on it, you apparently don't understand the problems of detecting doping which specifics are not known to WADA and it's tests. If you stand by your believe we will never reach a conclusion.
Considering this is your premise. Then yes I would want something called "proof". Why is it so hard to provide proof to any of your claims?
^^ Because sadly the "innocent until proven guilty" is a stance that's of course correct from a legal standpoint, but the huge gap in modern Olmympics and the incredible improvements made in the last years leads to the conclusion that today's top athletes should be thought about in a very critical manner. There's no 100% prove right now, but ignoring contacts between notorious doping docs and athletes that are well documented, interviews with former athletes that say they all took tons of doping and made no secret about it between eachother, doctors coming out of the closet and providing lists with athletes they provided with doping...I think it's wrong to ignore all that and simply playing the "not guilty until proven otherwise" card. Of course all these things I mention are no definite proof, but it should be taken into account and make people question how big the spread of doping is.
http://www.wired.com/playbook/2012/07/olympic-anti-doping-campaign/ http://www.theatlantic.com/technolo...-be-getting-routine-gene-doping-tests/260700/ http://articles.timesofindia.indiat...i-doping-community-athletes-in-training-camps http://www.usatoday.com/sports/2006-07-05-doping-doctor_x.htm http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2008/08/10/juice-for-today-s-athlete.html http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/afp_sports/view/1216239/1/.html http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/15/sports/15doctor.html?pagewanted=all http://msn.foxsports.com/olympics/s...h-doctor-conducting-blood-transfusions-013012 http://www.playthegame.org/uploads/...s_in_wrestling_weight_lifting_and_cycling.pdf Those were like the first 12 pages of google, and there are millions.
One of millions of quotes and excerpts you can easily find: One potential doping method that Eichner and others find concerning are experimental drugs containing growth hormone-releasing peptides. HGH in this instance is not administered but instead the peptides taken stimulate growth hormone secretion, making it even harder to detect. To make matters worse, many of these HGH-releasing peptides are not yet FDA approved and there are currently many versions available on the black market. What’s next is anyone’s guess, because it seems the dopers are always ahead of the curve. One idea getting a lot of attention lately is gene doping — genetically manipulating cells to produce more EPO, for example, or manipulating the cells that regulate muscle mass. Such alterations could aid those with genetic diseases, but it isn’t difficult to imagine athletes using such techniques to boost performance. Fedoruk isn’t convinced such a possibility is, at this point, anything more than a theory, but neither will he rule it out. Still, one thing is certain. In the cat-and-mouse game between dopers and doctors, the dopers will remain a step ahead. “Athletes adjust doping practices based on the technology that we bring out in the labs,” Eichner said. “We make an improvement, they make an adjustment, and we go from there.”
The least thing you can do is apologize for your rude remarks about my comments on the facettes of doping and the issues of doping tests, just admit that you didn't really know about the topic and I'm good with it.
would you give it a rest already? I didnt even read your other post and for the most part ignored them. The only thing I see you are good at is trolling... Your claim of 99% of athletes all dope is just ridiculous. Others have asked you to provide evidence of such wild claims yet the only thing you can come back with is more bull shi^t. These games are the most tested in history with high tech testing. So far there has not been any major cases of anyone getting caught with doping. Are you claiming all these drug companies, scientists, lab techs, etc etc are all idiots and simply not catching the cheaters? If 99% of atheltes are cheating dont you think we would have heard something by now? You are now in sigmund, glen rice territory.
^^ Then you should've read my links that provide insight from those specific anti-doping labs where they admit that doping is always ahead of them. I provide tons of links and quotes from the people that fight doping and a person like you, that knows nothing about doping says things that even they would shake their head about. If you call dozens of links with scientific insight by anti-doping leaders "bullsh!t" then I don't know what to say. And I never said "99%", so please stop it. Some of you guys are embarassing yourselves. Not reading posts that provide actual insight by respected persons in this field and attacking me after that, hilarious.
You said "Majority of athletes", that's more than half the athletes are implying around 70% of them at least. Second of all, none of your links proved your point. You just literally posted a bunch of random links that has no relevance whatsoever. Every single article, and I have read all of them, suggests that doping still exists and is still a problem. Which, nobody ever denied. However, not one of them states that drug enhancement is so prevalent that the "majority of the athletes" are taking it. In other words, not one of them states that drug tests are ineffective and incompetent. This is even more r****ded, which you stupidly thought was supporting your point. All it states is that dopers will always be ahead. No ****..? They will always be ahead because they are always the ones to make the first move, and it's up to the rest to come up with a counter move. Does that mean that drug tests are ineffective and that the "majority of athletes" are doped up? No. You are straight up trolling, as people said you are in Glen Rice territory. None of your links proved your point, they are just a pile of random links which you just googled up. Find me ONE quote from ANY article which states that drug tests are so incompetent that apparently "the majority of athletes" are doped up even when they come out clean. That's all anyone asked since the beginning, you can't even do that.
No one can prove the majority is doped, don't be foolish. The scientist in the link I quoted basically admitted that there are new dopings that can't be tested positive and that they'll always be ahead. You said I was retarted for stating that you can create doping that doesn't get detected. You're even too stubborn to admit that and now wash it away. First their tests are so great that they detect all doping because they all contain the same chemicals from your uneducated believe, now that I provide links that prove that your statement was idiotic and that you wrongly attacked me you don't even reply to that. Majority, I still stand by that and in my opinion you guys are naive little children if you think it's only a small minority. This is my last post on this topic, bye.
So basically, you have no proof and you straight up trolled. At least I didn't claim I'm a doctor with a Phd then embarrass myself with the "if drugs are new they are undetectable".
You really don't understand that there is doping out there which can't be detected, even if anti-doping scientists admit and explain it? Your use of the word "embarassing" is so out of context it's horrible. Like I said, you don't know anything about doping and somehow even my links didn't make you understand that there are forms of doping that can't be detected with today's tests. The man that said all kinds of doping have the same chemicals and tried to say I'm r****ded, then came up with his epic "make a new kind of crack" paragraph that is the most stupid thing ever said on doping. Now even when science says there are drugs that can't be detected and a anti-doping professional admits it, you somehow manage to still stand by your brianless view on this topic. This is my last post to you, please don't waste your time replying, I won't check back into this thread.
