»
Topic: Ostarine and Common Sense
Replies: 36   Last Post: Dec 28, 2018 10:17 AM by: Ihopehedo
This topic has been archived - replies are not allowed.


[ Archives - Tiger Boards Archive ]
Start New Topic
Replies: 36  

Ostarine and Common Sense

[5]
Posted: Dec 27, 2018 8:24 PM
 

Since ostarine is a performance-enhancing substance with a half-life...and the trace amount warrants a suspension, the NCAA obviously feels it knows an amount that would improperly aid an athlete.

With that thought in mind, let's use the 'known' and divine how much the players MUST have ingested to result in the test finding. Once that amount is determined, 'source' what a normal 'enhancing dosage' would be. Does the 'ingestion' equate to an amount that would enhance? Would it be close? Would it be half the amount needed? Less?

Common sense says if the 'trace' was an 'original' amount that would not be close to an enhancing dosage...or, if taking ostarine requires repeated dosages to 'build' up in the system, then would that not support the players' claim they have no idea where it came from? Why would anyone purposely intake something that will not have the desired effect?

So, NCAA...tell the players how much they took, if you're so all-knowing. There's two sides to every story...the part everyone knows, or is talking about...and the unspoken. I want to hear what's been left unsaid to this point.


Re: Ostarine and Common Sense

[5]
Posted: Dec 27, 2018 8:32 PM
 

I'm just curious if you realize you're arguing that no one who is cycling off a PED should ever be considered guilty?

Note, I'm not saying your players are guilty. But you're presenting a scenario that would definitely allow guilty parties to do it without repercussion.

badge-donor-05yr.jpgmilitary_donation.jpg

"Smelley, Garcia, and Beecher are going to lead you to 4-8." - york_tiger


Quit pecking at rocks...

[2]
Posted: Dec 27, 2018 8:38 PM
 

And pay attention. We know when the players have been tested. The existing 'trace' comes from an original amount. That amount, because of a half-life, can be determined in tandem with the no less than the time since the last 'clean' test.

I'm not justifying anything other than 'guilty until proven innocent' flies in the face of one of the core tenants upon which this country has operated. And that tenant existed before the NCAA was even a dream.


Re: Quit pecking at rocks...

[1]
Posted: Dec 28, 2018 8:32 AM
 

They failed 2 drug tests. That is not guilty until proven innocent.


Re: Failed 2 tests?


Posted: Dec 28, 2018 8:37 AM
 

My understanding is that they were given a "test" once and the sample given was tested twice. The second sample was from the same date and was simply tested again to ensure there was not an error on the first one. It's not the same as test one day, find a positive test result and test at a later date.


Correct - they didn’t fail 2 tests. Sample B is


Posted: Dec 28, 2018 9:12 AM
 

from the same original specimen. Separated at the time it was taken so that you can verify that nothing went wrong with the equip/lab tech etc w sample A


Intent


Posted: Dec 28, 2018 8:39 AM
 

It’s only against the rules if they intentionally took something. Burden of proof is on them to prove it was unintentional. That’s literally the definition if guilty until proven innocent.


Re: Intent


Posted: Dec 28, 2018 8:57 AM
 

Intent has nothing to do with the issue. A race horse does not intentionally take banned drugs but doped horses cannot run in races.

The players have not been suspended because they are bad people or intentionally did something wrong. The players have been suspended because they had a banned substance in their bodies.

If the rule is bad, worked to get the rule changed. If only the 3 Clemson guys had the substance in their bodies out of all the players tested over 5 years of CFP, then work to find out how the 3 Clemson guys were contaminated. Is there evidence of intentional sabotage? Was Dexter set up? Is the fact three guys tested positive at Clemson indicative of an institutional issue of contamination?

I believe Dexter Lawrence is telling the whole truth and nothing but the truth but I do not think that's very much a key factor in this issue.

Ball game will be played on Saturday. Our 3 guys will not play. There is a lot of wasted and illogical anger coming from Clemson fans that is worse than useless and which reflects badly on Clemson.

2019 white level memberbadge-donor-15yr.jpg

Re: Quit pecking at rocks...

[1]
Posted: Dec 28, 2018 8:59 AM
 

Bawk bawk bawk bawk bawk.

2019 orange level memberbadge-donor-10yr.jpg

Photobucket is holding my sig pic hostage. Screw them.


Re: Quit pecking at rocks...


Posted: Dec 28, 2018 10:13 AM
 

I hate to agree with a South Carolina guy, but there are too many unknowns to allow the guys to play right now. One of the triathletes that got it from contaminated salt tablets tested for 6 or 7 nanograms per ml, which is billionths of a gram, therefore .0002 is roughly 30,000 times higher if we are dealing with the same units. I don't think these guys did anything wrong, but it is hardly guilty until proven innocent. There is evidence to suggest wrong doing, that needs to be addressed. I would not accept, "Our guys wouldn't do that," from anyone else, and don't expect them to from us. I would not expect that they had done anything wrong, but I would want something other than their word to suggest innocence or we are asking for people to cheat and just say they didn't know.


Re: Quit pecking at rocks...


Posted: Dec 28, 2018 10:17 AM
 

When it comes to substances (supposedly) found in the body, guilt before innocence is usually the standard. DUI laws always assume guilt and if you want to fight it, then you have to do so later. Even then, the defense is usually around the methodology used to obtain the sample rather than the test findings.


Not saying I agree with this it is just the way it is.....

2019 orange level member

Re: Ostarine and Common Sense

[1]
Posted: Dec 27, 2018 9:26 PM
 

Hey simple minded chicken. What he is suggesting is reconstructing worst case dose. If there is a known clean sample and a 24 hour half life a worst case dose received could be constructed. Not that hard to understand.


Re: Ostarine and Common Sense


Posted: Dec 27, 2018 9:27 PM
 

How would the NCAA have a known clean sample?

badge-donor-05yr.jpgmilitary_donation.jpg

"Smelley, Garcia, and Beecher are going to lead you to 4-8." - york_tiger


Re: Ostarine and Common Sense


Posted: Dec 27, 2018 9:49 PM
 

Clemson test monthly is my understanding

2019 white level memberbadge-donor-05yr.jpg

Go Tigers! Once A Tiger Always A Tiger


Re: Ostarine and Common Sense

[1]
Posted: Dec 27, 2018 10:02 PM
 

I don't think you've thought this one out.

You want the NCAA to trust a sample it has no way of knowing whether or not it's been tampered with?

badge-donor-05yr.jpgmilitary_donation.jpg

"Smelley, Garcia, and Beecher are going to lead you to 4-8." - york_tiger


the NCAA trusts all schools to do this as they


Posted: Dec 28, 2018 9:47 AM
 

do other areas of enforcement. It’s all done by certified labs etc. When you find a positive, you are required to report those findings. That said if these guys have clean tests I don’t think it matters as evidence on appeal because even if they hypothetically have a clean testfrom the NCAA the day before then it’s not considered evidence for appeal. However, a previous clean test will substantially reduce the volume of data/physical evidence that needs to be looked at to find the source based on time period. Finding the source of contamination is going to be critical, although possibly very difficult on the backend.


Re: Ostarine and Common Sense

[1]
Posted: Dec 28, 2018 8:34 AM
 

we dont test monthly. I was tested 3 times in my career. 2 of those was by the NCAA. Only once by Clemson. Again, I dont think DL did anything intentional. Im just trying to give an insight to what actually goes on.


Re: Ostarine and Common Sense

[5]
Posted: Dec 28, 2018 9:15 AM
 

If you're really trying to suggest that you're Ben you could have at least spelled Boulware correctly.

2019 student level member

Re: Ostarine and Common Sense

[1]
Posted: Dec 28, 2018 10:03 AM
 

Spelling is not part of the core curriculum at USCjr. Neither is the science of common sense.

2019 orange level member

Re: Ostarine and Common Sense


Posted: Dec 28, 2018 10:17 AM
 

He definitely has been trying to trash the program since this event became public. I am curious if online identity theft (I mean that’s what this is) could subject this person to legal liability? His comments have been slanderous to CU and BB’s new business venture. I suspect he’d be oh so easy to track down.


Re: Ostarine and Common Sense

[1]
Posted: Dec 27, 2018 9:47 PM
 

GO #### UP A ROPE AHOLE


Re: Ostarine and Common Sense


Posted: Dec 27, 2018 9:48 PM
 

Why are you even on our board? Lamecock central dead?


Get Lost.***


Posted: Dec 28, 2018 10:15 AM
 



2019 orange level member

Re: Ostarine and Common Sense

[1]
Posted: Dec 27, 2018 8:36 PM
 

I would too and I also feel the coaches etc knew the B outcome well before the media- us knew. I would imagine there’s been literally hundreds of people working to identify the cause and that may have already been identified as well but nothing was going to change this weekend. As DRad said, hopefully an appeal before the NC game.

2019 orange level member2016_pickem_champ.jpg

Let's all hope Clemson finds a way to suit up Dex in NC game

[1]
Posted: Dec 27, 2018 8:54 PM
 

And let's also agree, if no Tiger players had tested positive, and Bama's Quinnen Williams had tested positive, this board would be lit up calling for Williams to be suspended.

Right now we just don't know what caused the positive … even Big Dex does not know. All we know is Dabo and BV are all over this, and will have the team ready.

2019 purple level memberbadge-donor-05yr.jpg

I disagree...though you may well be right

[1]
Posted: Dec 27, 2018 9:03 PM
 

About many others. I simply find blatantly unfair to be distasteful. There is scarcely a person on this board that had even heard of ostarine until this week. I realize there are plenty of folks ready to lynch any non-Tiger, but there are plenty of us that don't subscribe to that approach. Heck, look at the Deebo Samuel support comments. We're not all unrealistic and callous.


Re: I disagree...though you may well be right

[2]
Posted: Dec 27, 2018 9:45 PM
 

Agree that lots of class and fairness exists on this board Salty including you, and agree with you that this Ostarine shot is hard to take - so many unanswered questions. How many players were tested on how many teams? And how is it that Big Dex and two other Tigers are the only players I have heard of in country suspended for Ostarine?

All that said, while its fair to hurt for Dex, it's also fair to applaud Dabo and BV for making it clear they love the big man, but they have to move on and prep the DL and all the troops for ND. The game will be over in 48 hrs, and we all want ND to be licking their wounds.

2019 purple level memberbadge-donor-05yr.jpg

Re: Let's all hope Clemson finds a way to suit up Dex in NC game


Posted: Dec 27, 2018 9:19 PM
 

or big dex does know, and isn't saying. lance armstrong was using blood transfusions for twenty years before the rest of us figured out he wasn't a boy scout.


Re: Ostarine and Common Sense

[1]
Posted: Dec 27, 2018 9:10 PM
 

It doesn't really work that way. First off, supplements are not regulated by any sort of governing body. That's why physicians have a hard time recommending any of these to patient. it's mainly just because the science hasn't been proven for them to help, or not help.

With that said, we have a general understanding of what half life might be, but it's hard to say how much a substance was actually ingested. Someone could have purposely taking a large dose, several weeks prior and have similar results on a random sample of urine as someone who had unknowing exposure that was a very lower proportions, just more recent.

Obviously if you had a known date of exposure, you could reverse-engineer it and have some idea of how much they ingested, but without that it's very difficult to say

In regards to the NCAA, I think they're useless. But this isn't a criminal trial. we have to play by their rules, right or wrong. For some reason, they have reason to believe have the substance can provide an athlete with enhanced performance, and as such has is zero tolerance ban


Message was edited by: Orange T-Square



Does this suggest

[1]
Posted: Dec 27, 2018 9:20 PM
 

The tests during the season aren't done to the same level of accuracy as this one? Otherwise, it is reasonably known when ingestion 'could' have occurred.


Not necessary


Posted: Dec 27, 2018 9:36 PM
 

to answer your first question, I certainly have no knowledge as to the quality of tests performed during the season. I will say That I know that both Clemson conducts individual testing, as well as the NCAA. Clemson is usually sometime off-season /preseason with the NCAA during the season and spot test in the postseason. You would hope that the test that Clemson conducts is of the same exact consistency and quality of the NCAA, however, these tests cost money. and in some cases can be very expensive so it comes into a risk / benefit ratio. With that said you would hate for a athlete to pass your University conducted tests, then subsequently fail the NCAA tests and be ruled ineligible. some of the prior testing may have also been done to evaluate for any illicit substances, however not banned substances as well. They all have different purposes.

In regards to your second point, you can only rule out when an athlete did not take a substance, but you cannot rule it in. There would not be a clear way to discern if an athlete took a large substance only once a couple of days after prior clean testing, vs a miniscule amount one or two days prior to testing. They could perhaps show as similar results when quantified on a sample


Okay, but the players' interviews


Posted: Dec 28, 2018 5:45 AM
 

Indicated multiple random tests occur, not just throughout the year, but during the season. While testing can be expensive, it's a 'cost of doing business', if legitimacy is a goal. Why even conduct a test that won't rise to the level of a testing process.

Half life means something and can suggest a starting 'dosage', coupled with other known events, such as prior tests/results. Here's where the NCAA, or any ruling sports body is playing with fire. If a dosage meets the threshold representative of an amount needed to enhance, there's likely to be clear intent, absent any other factor. That said, a 'trace' doesn't and suggests the NCAA would be prepared to ban an entire program if a person was successful in tainting that program's food, water, etc., supply. That would be alright? Let the NCAA try to pass that off by applying a 'common sense' approach (legitimate position, most likely) and see if every player banned prior doesn't sue them in court...and win.

Lines in the sand have consequences. The NCAA needs to be able to support their stance, not a suspicion.


Re: Does this suggest

[1]
Posted: Dec 28, 2018 8:38 AM
 

Now youre getting it. In season test are done by the school. Bowl game tests are done by the NCAA. You could buy the School test from Dollar General. The NCAA test is the real deal. I knew there was no chance of getting cleared by sample B. The school test for recreational drugs and not PEDS. No school test for any school has ever detected PEDs.


I'd love to see the

[3]
Posted: Dec 28, 2018 8:45 AM
 

Real Ben Boulware get a grip on you. What a pretentious piece of excrement you are.


Re: Does this suggest

[1]
Posted: Dec 28, 2018 10:14 AM
 

I'll be coming through Anderson tomorrow morning on the way to Clemson. Can we set up a tour of your gym? Need an address and phone number. Email address is on my profile. I'll wait.

2019 orange level member

Re: Ostarine and Common Sense


Posted: Dec 28, 2018 9:01 AM
 

Although HIGHLY unlikely....it is possible that every player on the team ingested the "mysterious source" of the ostarine at the same time and these three just metabolize the drug differently (in this case slower)than everyone else tested. Just throwing this out there.......

2019 orange level memberbadge-donor-05yr.jpg

Common Sense will bring woes.

[1]
Posted: Dec 28, 2018 9:25 AM
 

To make the calculation scenario work as you describe you'd need to know how long ago it was taken.

If a test subject too 1mg of 'x,' on day zero a .5mg result would show on day 1 and a .25mg result would show on day two. A .0125mg would show on day three, a .0625 on day three and so on and so on... until the day of testing.

2019 orange level memberbadge-donor-05yr.jpg

Replies: 36  

TIGER TICKETS

FB GAME: Boston College
FOR SALE: 2 tickets for homecoming for sale Section TDT Row B Seats 33 and 35. FACE VALUE ($60 each) with C1...

Buy or Sell CU Tickets and More in Tiger Tickets!

[ Archives - Tiger Boards Archive ]
Start New Topic
6683 people have read this post