llb, what exactly would you have her do? Clearly, at least some evidence points to her having a banned drug in her system. Every league has an appeal process. She ought to go through that if she thinks she's innocent. How that compares to mud wrestling pigs for years is beyond me. Perhaps you could enlighten us? You never did tell me what you were smoking when you wrote proivde any benefi to an athletet, It looks to be a slow Friday night at my house, I'm looking for ideas. As to my reference to buddies that used coke before raquetball games...clearly I was not inferring that it actually helped them, I was just stating why some folks do it.
llb, what exactly would you have her do? I wasn't suggesting that she do anything. You were the one making suggestions. I was just saying that "fighting it" involved a lot more than taking a three-month vacation. Clearly, at least some evidence points to her having a banned drug in her system. Every league has an appeal process. She ought to go through that if she thinks she's innocent. How that compares to mud wrestling pigs for years is beyond me. Perhaps you could enlighten us? I don't know who "us" is, but a lot of people here have been participating in various PED threads, in which it has been explained that despite what Mr. Scott thinks, the rule in sports drug testing is "guilty until proven innocent", not the other way around. A positive test for a banned substance = guilt; at that point, an athlete who wants to "fight it" must, in effect, prove a negative. If there are questions about whether the test is a legitimate test for the substance, the burden of proof is on the athlete. If there are questions about whether the proper protocols to ensure the identify of the sample and to protect against cross-contamination were observed, the burden of proof is on the athlete. If there are questions about whether the testing authority violated its own procedures for testing, sanctioning, release of nformation, etc., the athlete can only contest these violations using the authority's own appeals process. Now can you see why it's a bit silly to say "she ought to fight it"? Fighting it means putting a lot of time, trouble and expense into a system that's rigged against the athlete. Innocence is no guarantee of exoneration; "fighting it" is always a gamble. She was approaching the end of her career anyway; she'd rather get on with life than fight this fight. You never did tell me what you were smoking when you wrote proivde any benefi to an athletet, It looks to be a slow Friday night at my house, I'm looking for ideas. I never told you because it was a jackass question. Shall I respond by asking you if you've stopped kicking your dog yet? Don't be a jackass. As to my reference to buddies that used coke before raquetball games...clearly I was not inferring that it actually helped them, I was just stating why some folks do it. Right, but see, if it doesn't actually enhance performance, then why should it be banned? Sports bodies are supposed to regulate harmful, performance-enhancing substances. They don't ban arsenic, ya know?
llb let me be very clear...bite me! Your lack of a sense of humor is astounding. Equating my ribbing you for a string of odd spelling errors to being a jackass is out of line. People on this site have been harshly criticized for less grammatical/spelling errors than what you wrote. I was only giving you a duly deserved ribbing. Stop taking yourself so seriously, the rest of us don't. You can infer whatever you'd like as to what "us" I'm referring to. As to your overkill paragraph on why poor Martina didn't want to fight the allegations, if she isn't even going to at least take the step of questioning the test, then I have little concern for her innocence. Your insistence that she will have to fight for years makes no sense when she has not even tried the first step. Lastly, on whether or not cocaine should be banned, I would have to guess that since it's illegal in most countries, arsenic is not. Have a great day, and seriously, what were you smoking...it may not be on the banned list of yet!
I learn one thing on this site-never augue drug testing with llb. Here's wishing you a good weekend and smoke'm if you got em.
the funny part is that I really wasn't even arguing drug testing....more about what you do when you test positive. Smoke what????, for the love God, man, what is it I'm supposed to smoke? Off to a football game...have a great weekend everyone!
Some posters don't believe any professional athletes have ever taken drugs, performance-enhancing or otherwise, ever. Not even an aspirin! All positive tests are due to incompetence or conspiracy. Trust me, dviking you will not change their minds about this.
I have to support LBB here. Hingis also provided a hair follicle sample and it turned up negative. Drugs stay in follicles a lot longer than in the blood, yet they would not accept that result. A female tennis player reaches her "prime" in early to mid twenties, so she just said fuck it, it is not a battle I want to endure. As for cocaine use in sports and whether it is helpful: I played on an elite college soccer team and we lost a game we were clearly favored in after a 7 game win streak. After the game I found out three starters used coke a few hours before the game. They played like crap and I sure as hell let them know about it. It made them play like Zombies, not like alert, focused, energetic athletes. Just my two cents on the subject.
Well, seems our little Martina decided to fight this all along. Seems she hired a lawyer days ago, and it appears that her going public with the results of the test may be part of her defense strategy. Per a story breaking tonight in the UK, the league wouldn't announced anything about her failing a drug test until she had been heard by the disciplinary panel. Had the panel cleared her, the story would have never seen the light of day. Instead, she goes public in order for her side of the story to be heard first. That way the officials are the bad guys, and she's just a poor victim of inept drug screeners. Here's the link to the story I'm referring to. You can make your decision as to whether or not you believe her...to me, something seems fishy.
llb let me be very clear...bite me! Guess you put me in my place. Your lack of a sense of humor is astounding. Equating my ribbing you for a string of odd spelling errors to being a jackass is out of line. dviking, there's a reason why they're referred to on the interwebs as a "spelling lame". People on this site have been harshly criticized for less grammatical/spelling errors than what you wrote. I was only giving you a duly deserved ribbing. People on this site have been harshly criticized for grammatical/spelling/
punctuation errors when they make them consistently and clearly can't be bothered to do better. In my case, I wasn't even aware of having made them. Normally I'm a very good touch typist and know right away when I have made a mistake. However -- and this really is none of your damned business, but you will persist in your typo lame, so here goes -- about three months ago, after a year and a half of symptoms, I was diagnosed with rheumatoid arthritis. Rheumatoid arthritis is an autoimmune disorder that attacks the joints. It is chronic, it is incurable, it is extremely painful, it is crippling and it is sometimes fatal. On the day I typed that response, I had attacks in both hands -- some fingers worked, others wouldn't fully bend or straighten. I'm still learning to manage, and I'm not yet used to typing when my hands hurt like hell and aren't giving me the feedback I'm used to. So in answer to your attempted humor, that's the "drug" that I was on: rheumatoid arthritis. Real knee-slapper, ain't it? Stop taking yourself so seriously, the rest of us don't. You can infer whatever you'd like as to what "us" I'm referring to. I don't believe for one second that you speak for anyone but yourself and the mouse in your pocket.
odd, never heard of sporadic rheumatoid arthritis...spell 98% of a 200 word response correctly, then spell four words incorrectly, then go back to spelling correctly again. Not belittling any physical condition that anyone has, mind you. "spelling lame" wow, good stuff...guess I must be a jackass after all.
OK, dviking, it's time to get on WebMD and do some reading. Rheumatoid arthritis strikes sporadically, especially in its early stages. In my case, it attacked my shoulders an hips, before moving into my hands and feet. The flare-ups were a few weeks apart, but usually meant no sleep for a day or 2. I am on drugs to keep the disease at bay; they are immune system suppressants, and I love them dearly. I too have difficulty typing after the effects of arthritis in my right hand and surgery (unrelated) in my left. So much for the defense of l_b_b. Now my advice --- l_b_b, try to spend a little time with the "preview" screen. I probably spend as much time correcting typos as I do composing. It's also a good way to review your writing and make sure that you are really saying what you mean. Sorry for turning this into a medical clinic, but since dviking seems not to understand how rheumatoid arthritis works, I thought it needed to be said.
Howard...FYI, I have several MD's for friends, spouse is a Registered Respiratory Therapist(she makes me note the Registered part), I have all the medical sources I need. By "sporadic rhuematoid arthritis" I was referring to llb's ability to claim that it caused three words to be misspelled 90% into their post, and then suddenly go away. Call me a jackass if you want, I just do not believe that arthritis caused those spelling errors. Totally understand how an illness can have flare ups, an by no means was I belittling as serious of an illness as this.
By "sporadic rhuematoid arthritis" I was referring to llb's ability to claim that it caused three words to be misspelled 90% into their post, and then suddenly go away. Call me a jackass if you want, I just do not believe that arthritis caused those spelling errors. Goodness, let it go. You mentioning the typo in the first place was enough of a jackass move, you don't need to compound it. Believe what you want, but what's the point of harping on it after you were given a completely unnecessary (and personal) explanation.
