stepping hill hospital and insulin contamination

[readtherules]

First great sympathy to the families of those that have died.

I have written in other posts about using DMSO and metabolites to get rivals banned.
Now we have sealed medical supplies contaminated/interfered with.
According to WADA you are responsible for what enters your body.
Radcliffe has been reported as saying that she only uses sealed products.
What if some malcontent does get banned detectable products into the food at training camps or the village ?
Stranger things have happened.
I have also pointed out the existance of the Vetinary Residues Committe in this country to control steroid contamination in food.

My point ?
When you take controls to the extreme then you are bound to have outcomes that you did not think about.

[larkim]

Blimey, you are paranoid aren't you!!

Matt

[readtherules]

And is Radcliffe ?

And is there steroid contamination in food ?

And can you get rivals spiked ? Like the Johnson case ?

[AllanW]

And is Radcliffe ?

And is there steroid contamination in food ?

And can you get rivals spiked ? Like the Johnson case ?

Calm down please.

Put the pen down. Thanks.

Take off the tinfoil hat. There you go, that feels better, doesn't it?

Repeat suggestions 1 to 3 above until normal service is resumed.

Best of luck.

[readtherules]

And is Radcliffe ?

And is there steroid contamination in food ?

And can you get rivals spiked ? Like the Johnson case ?

Calm down please.

Put the pen down. Thanks.

Take off the tinfoil hat. There you go, that feels better, doesn't it?

Repeat suggestions 1 to 3 above until normal service is resumed.

Best of luck.

Answer the questions please and then progress can be made.

[BigGut]

Readtherules.

So far you have argued that it is wrong to:

Conduct tests on holidays
Conduct tests at home, without giving the person a warning that you are there
Ban people without proving they intended to cheat
Ban people wihtout proving how the substance got into their body
Ban somebody based on strict liability
Search premises for prohibited substances

Given the above how do you actually expect to tackle drugs in the sport if:

You cannot random test
You cannot actually use any test as the person will simply argue it was due to spiking or contaminated food and you can't prove that they are being supplied with illicit substances because you can't search their suppliers.

Seriously you are nothing but a supporter of drug cheats. Plain and simple.

And you pretend that you have simply read the rules. Garbage, you ahven't read and more importantly understood any of the rules. You just make things up and misrepresent things constantly. In addition you also made a very telling comment when you said that you had seen the documentation that Mark Edwards had received alongside his notification. How? It hasn't been published. I think it is fair to say that you have more of an interest in drugs cheats than you are letting on.

[mump boy]

readtherules

What is your personal experience and association with drug testing procedures and have you or anyone you are related to, or have any kind of relationship with, ever failed a drug test or served a ban for a doping offence ?

[readtherules]

readtherules

What is your personal experience and association with drug testing procedures and have you or anyone you are related to, or have any kind of relationship with, ever failed a drug test or served a ban for a doping offence ?

I refer you to my previous answer.

[readtherules]

biggut.

You have made previous unpleasant comments about me and on that basis have informed you that I will not engage you in debate.
I have used the search engine and you have misquated me.Very clever as you know I will not debate with you.

[readtherules]

The police have to follow the normal rules and accept the rights of individuals.This may make their work more difficult but
this is accepted in a mature society.
Why should sport be any different ?

[fangio]

readtherules

What has your comment about the police got to do with htis topic, I can see no relevance at all, as this one is about the excuse that things can be contaminated deliberately?

What individual rights that the Police respect are being broken related to this topic?

[readtherules]

Fangio.
Please refer to my previous post to you when I made it clear that your insults made it such that I would not enter any debate with you.

[BigGut]

As usual readtherules is making unfounded accussations of wrongdoing and refusing to explain them. He has lied through his teeth previously about things breaking rules and I have no reason to believe thatthis claim is any different.

[mump boy]

readtherules

What is your personal experience and association with drug testing procedures and have you or anyone you are related to, or have any kind of relationship with, ever failed a drug test or served a ban for a doping offence ?

I refer you to my previous answer.

can you please point me to this previous post, i can't find it and am eager to hear your answer

[BigGut]

In discussion of the Edwards case you said:

[quote=readtherules]The directions that came with the decision repeated the rules.The decision MUST not be announced until an appeal is completed or if no appeal then not until end of month.This is breach is now subject to legal action as an appeal is prejudiced.[/quote]

How have you sen the directions that came with that decision, please show where they have been published or explain your connections with Mark Edwards that have given you access to his post.

I have not misquoted you your words are there for all to see.

[fangio]

Hilarious, readtherules makes up a load of nonsense which he says is in some made up laws, or rules, gets called on it, repeatedly declines to back his claims up with any specific wording from the laws he is supposed to be quoting but continues to make them, gets (correctly) called a liar and so will not engage with those people who call him out for making things up. he then goes on to make even more unfoudned and ridiculous claims.

Ans his topic of choice, makign all sorts of ridiculous claims about how testing is wrong. It isn't it is the only way to stop cheats.

Btw, his latest thing about the police having to respect rights etc when extended to sport surely menas that a referee can't send someone off in football without a jury trial? Can't book someone for a double footed challenge unless you firstly arrest them for assualt and provide the evidence to the CPS. Or maybe sports have their own laws which the players agree to abide by.

[readtherules]

Your post has nothing to do with this topic.

[readtherules]

Hilarious, readtherules makes up a load of nonsense which he says is in some made up laws, or rules, gets called on it, repeatedly declines to back his claims up with any specific wording from the laws he is supposed to be quoting but continues to make them, gets (correctly) called a liar and so will not engage with those people who call him out for making things up. he then goes on to make even more unfoudned and ridiculous claims.

Ans his topic of choice, makign all sorts of ridiculous claims about how testing is wrong. It isn't it is the only way to stop cheats.

Btw, his latest thing about the police having to respect rights etc when extended to sport surely menas that a referee can't send someone off in football without a jury trial? Can't book someone for a double footed challenge unless you firstly arrest them for assualt and provide the evidence to the CPS. Or maybe sports have their own laws which the players agree to abide by.

I refer you to my previous post to you.I further note that you continue to call me a liar.

[readtherules]

Your post has nothing to do with this topic.

I should have directed this to big gut and added that he too has called me a liar and this means thatr I will not debate with him.

[readtherules]

readtherules

What is your personal experience and association with drug testing procedures and have you or anyone you are related to, or have any kind of relationship with, ever failed a drug test or served a ban for a doping offence ?

I refer you to my previous answer.

can you please point me to this previous post, i can't find it and am eager to hear your answer

Follows the last time you sent this post.

[readtherules]

Would anyone care to deal with any of the issues raised in the first post under this topic ?
Or are they too frightening to think about.

Radcliffe has given the matter some thought and action!

[BigGut]

Everybody gets it,

People can be sopiked and banned, people can accidentally take something that fails a test and be banned. people can innocently take something that somebody else gave them and been banned. People with nothing to hide can be tested. People with nothing to hide have to make themselves availble for testing. People have to do things in sport that are not required in normal life. Testing is imperfect and can have errors.

We all understand this. We also understand the fact that when we sign up to take part in sport we are subject to the rules of the sport and that making this decision does not infringe our human rights. Meanwhile you are trying to make out that this means that this means that people should not be banned from participating in competitive sport if they fail a test and that they should not have to be tested.

This is where we differ, because the vast majority of people involved in sport would rather accept the tiny proportion of false positives and the slight inconvenience of testing in order to tackle the dishonest cheats that ruin our sport. If I was at the elite end I wouldn't mind somebody testing me every single week, because it would show that there was a real determination to rid our sports of cheating scum.

I don'ty know if you noticed but sometimes people are wrongly sent to prison. Society accepts that this is the case, in your twisted sick world we should not bother to investigate and prosecute criminals because occassionally things go wrong. Idiotic in the extreme.

[sovietvest]

Would anyone care to deal with any of the issues raised in the first post under this topic ?
Or are they too frightening to think about.

Radcliffe has given the matter some thought and action!

I'm too scared to enter into any debate with you. I've formed a mental image of a steroid-ingesting heavy throws specialist with mild paranoia and I'm scared you'll find out where I live.

[readtherules]

In a mature society attempts would be made to take into account such as spiking.Such would be doing hormonal profiles to see if any use was other than singular use and follow up tests within a short period to do the same.
There has to be something questionable about rules that require such a bright athlete as Radcliffe not to have food from non sealed sources.And then we find that even sealed medical supplies can be got at.

To have a fair justice system in sport and one that compares with normal systems requires an investment that sport is unwilling to make.Eventually the cheap system will catch sport out.

When it does I bet they suddenly find that a whole host of banned drugs are actually benficial to the health of athletes at the extreme of training regimes and that training is far more dangerous and drugs mitigate these dangers.

[BigGut]

In a mature society attempts would be made to take into account such as spiking?????

Now I know you are just excusing cheats. You have no alternative system. Your hormonal profile suggestion doesn't work. If you get tetsted when you are taking drugs, then you would simply stop taking them take the next test and claim it was spiking, every body would have a free pass to cheat away.

All you ever do is come up with reasons why drugs cheats should be able to ruin sport.

[fangio]

Spiking is taken into account, if you can prove it was spiking then you get off. If you can't and are just making the suggestion with nothign to evidence it then it doesn't get you off, as giving no evidence does nothing to distinguish in any way whatsoever between those who are spiked and those who deliberately took substances just the once before getting caught. The hormonal tests as you suggest would do nothing to distinguish between a first time deliberate user (who is a cheat and deserves a severe ban) and a spiked person.

[mump boy]

readtherules

What is your personal experience and association with drug testing procedures and have you or anyone you are related to, or have any kind of relationship with, ever failed a drug test or served a ban for a doping offence ?

I refer you to my previous answer.

can you please point me to this previous post, i can't find it and am eager to hear your answer

Follows the last time you sent this post.

No it doesn't, you reply

Re: Doping news

Postby readtherules » Sat Jul 16, 2011 9:53 pm
I have got round to reading the rules .As it happens we are all under an obligation to do so,dont you think.
Any comment on the Indian suggestion that the Doc pack is missing or dont you think athletes have rights.Oh dear me ,I have asked you that on a good few occasions already.

Which has absolutely nothing to do with the question which you have now twice refused to answer

Unless you are clear about your background you have absolutely no credibility in this debate at all

[readtherules]

Contributors have pointed ,in measured tone,that spiking unless you can provide full evidence of it means you are prosecuted in exactly the same way as a full blown cheat.
The very nature of malicious spiking would mean that it would be highly unlikely that you could be able to produce any evidence.Indeed,as I best recall, spiking by a family member (unhappy spouse etc)even if proved would be no defence.

Thus taking spiking into account as set out by WADA is a very crude and simplistic.A mature society in the normal world would have a far more graduated and measured approach.

There has to be something wrong with rules that require Radcliffe to take the approach she takes.

As for hormonal profiles and pre and post tests esp at or around a major games would yield evidence of spiking.

I understand that WADA have many reasons,mainly financial, for a one fit solution.We now have this ammended a little with the concept of specified substances;perhaps there will be lot more of this in the future.

[readtherules]

readtherules

What is your personal experience and association with drug testing procedures and have you or anyone you are related to, or have any kind of relationship with, ever failed a drug test or served a ban for a doping offence ?

I refer you to my previous answer.

can you please point me to this previous post, i can't find it and am eager to hear your answer

Follows the last time you sent this post.

No it doesn't, you reply

Re: Doping news

Postby readtherules » Sat Jul 16, 2011 9:53 pm
I have got round to reading the rules .As it happens we are all under an obligation to do so,dont you think.
Any comment on the Indian suggestion that the Doc pack is missing or dont you think athletes have rights.Oh dear me ,I have asked you that on a good few occasions already.

Which has absolutely nothing to do with the question which you have now twice refused to answer

Unless you are clear about your background you have absolutely no credibility in this debate at all

It is the ideas that have or have not crediability.I am given to understand that posting are done on an anonomous basis and I think you know that.
As for failing to answer questions; all my questions to you have not been personal but I have multi refusals from you.

[fangio]

readtherules

Yet again utter garbage.

How on earth would your proposed tests distinguish between a first time deliberate drug cheater and a perosn who was spiked.

Simple, it doesn't.

So you are suggesting the rules adopt an approach which allows cheats to get off scot free, by claiming they were spiked, with no evidence that it actually was spiking rather than them gettingcaught the first time they took drugs deliberately.

Looks like a position of being an outright drug apologist to me, as do most of your poorly framed attacks on the drug test regime.