Doping

Posted on
Page
of 359
First Prev
/ 359
Next
  • I'm worried if we live in a world where we are responsible for other members of our families Facebook posting.

  • I love cosmo's sense of righteousness.
    She absolutely should be judged on what her husband says, if he's posting with 'insider' knowledge and information.
    It's stupid and reductive to say what he says doesn't matter. Like everything, it's about context.

  • Stupid and reductive? Wow.

    It's actually misogynistic and patriarchal to assume that what he posted represents her instead of her own formal statement. As was the comment I saw somewhere else on here about her jaw line.

  • I mean slate her all you want for the doping violation and the contents of her own statement, but I don't see a rationale for judging her by what someone else has said or for her appearance.

  • It's not a mate, a coach or a sponsor, it's the person she has chosen to spend her life with. It's not "misogynistic and patriarchal" unless we assume that as a man he is speaking for her rather than as her partner who happens to be a man. I'd make the assumption that anyone of any gender who was married or in a committed partnership with Katie Compton was speaking with her agreement.

    Fundamentally, it changes nothing. I don't think she is MORE likely to have doped because her husband starting throwing shit around, but neither Katie nor her husband have a single useful explanation for the positive test. Given her earlier statements about doping, she should have been smart enough to say she wasn't guilty but believed in the rules and would skip her final year.

  • I don't think either one of them are doing Katie any favours with their statements, but when it comes to gender dynamics take for example the situation when a married man is caught cheating on his wife and has to make a statement to the press. Anyone will find themselves in hugely shakey ground saying one or other party speaks for or on behalf of the other. The most I'd ever venture is saying 'that statement is hardly helpful to the case at hand'

  • Not sure the conclusion the article makes in reference to her statement about taking supplements is correct.
    It doesn’t matter much but I read it to mean she wouldn’t take a supplement that could be tainted, not that she doesn’t take supplements.

  • This tainted supplement excuse isn't cutting it any more. I bet Cj Ujah uses this excuse in the next few days. Loads of supplements are tainted that should be common knowledge now. So if your a pro athlete how about only work with nutrition companies that can provide assurances that your supplements are clean or get whatever your using tested then stick with what you know and still get that regularly tested just to be sure. Its your career, reputation and livelihood at stake. A mate of mine is involved in this sort of thing he says its easy to sort out if you want to and anyone who doesn't is either lazy and unprofessional or a cheater. I agree 100%

  • she's been unequivocal in her stance on doping in the past


    1 Attachment

    • Whitney.jpg
  • Leave Whitney alone!


    1 Attachment

    • 93D5B46D-E024-4B89-9BF0-EF61182E8CE0.jpeg
  • https://www.lfgss.com/comments/15805522/­

    Nine years and some NADA ban for the GCN commentator. All results starting from 2010 cancelled.

  • Can someone get Carlton Kirby some PED's?

    Although I dread to imagine the shite he'd spout after a few lines.

  • Feel free to update his wikipedia page.

  • It couldn't possibly be any worse, could it!?

    Apparently he's on a cocktail of Prozac and Viagra, so if he doesn't get a fuck he doesn't give a fuck.

  • Is that the sound of straws being clutched at?

    The only iffy thing here is some procedural errors from ten years ago. There is zero evidence of doping.

  • The blood continues to thicken...

    ftfy?

  • The plot thins...

    If I've understood this correctly;

    1. BC were concerned about possible supplement contamination
    2. They asked UKADA if it would be OK to conduct sampling and testing to check, outside of normal anti-doping
    3. A UKADA employee incorrectly said this was fine
  • an actual British Cycling doping offence.

    Er, not quite:

    "McBride signed with the British Cycling Paralympic team on March 16 this year, after her test was taken on March 3."

  • I care not for dates filthy British!

    "After British Cycling received notification of the test on April 15, McBride was immediately suspended."

  • Thought thread activity would be about Bahrain…

  • Anyone want to explain what's going on with this? So far as I know they've been taking some legal, but decidedly sketchy looking meds?

  • It would if an actual doping violation had taken place. But a) the alleged substance used is not banned and b) the use of it by Bahrain is alleged, not confirmed.

  • the alleged substance used is not banned and use...is alleged, not confirmed

    That's never been an impediment to chat here before 🙂

  • Post a reply
    • Bold
    • Italics
    • Link
    • Image
    • List
    • Quote
    • code
    • Preview
About

Doping

Posted by Avatar for rpm @rpm

Actions