IIHF Suspend Evgeny Kuznetsov for 4 Years

[sandysan]

Again, the entire caffeine talk is a red herring. He could be entirely right or entirely wrong on that subject at it still wouldn't matter. The substantive debate that you two are having is the extent to which the IIHF's anti-doping agency is within the purview of WADA. What items are, have been, or could have been, on the banned substance are entirely irrelevant.

It's a red herring how?
The argument was that only drugs that are known to enhance performance should be on the list, and because blow doesn't ( because his gut tells him so) that fireman shouldn't be subject to WADA sanctions.

That argument is proven vacuous by drugs like medium ( almost certainly no enhancement) and caffeine ( very likely some enhancement for some events) where one is on the list and one is not.

People who do not understand keep yapping about the lady's list of PED's. There is no such list ( although their list of prohibited substances includes some PED's).

If you can get pinched for meldonium which isn't a Ped, whining that blow shouldn't be on the list ( it is )or that even if it is on the list, but we shouldn't punish people for sucking it up their nostrils means that the list is now subjective.

A move to subjectivity kills the objective nature of the list.

The gc/ms doesn't care what your motivations were.

 

[kabidjan18]

It's a red herring how?
The argument was that only drugs that are known to enhance performance should be on the list, and because blow doesn't ( because his gut tells him so) that fireman shouldn't be subject to WADA sanctions.

That argument is proven vacuous by drugs like medium ( almost certainly no enhancement) and caffeine ( very likely some enhancement for some events) where one is on the list and one is not.

People who do not understand keep yapping about the lady's list of PED's. There is no such list ( although their list of prohibited substances includes some PED's).

If you can get pinched for meldonium which isn't a Ped, whining that blow shouldn't be on the list ( it is )or that even if it is on the list, but we shouldn't punish people for sucking it up their nostrils means that the list is now subjective.

A move to subjectivity kills the objective nature of the list.

The gc/ms doesn't care what your motivations were.

Let me explain to you how policy debate works. If you are defending a policy, you need to defend that policy against every single argument that is raised against it that poses an existential threat to it. For example, if you are defending the building of a metro system in city X and two arguments are brought up against that proposal, A. prohibitive costs, and B. redundancy with already effective bus systems. If you argue that the metro system would not be redundant, but you don't even address the prohibitive consts argument, you're simply not going to get your proposal passed. You have lost the policy debate.

Let's suppose that this PED/non-PED distinction debate is going well for you. It really isn't, you seem to have a hard time understanding the basic distinction between "should" and "is", and the argument that others are making is a argument about the way things should be, while you just keep restating the way things are. It should be abundantly clear to you that the argument has become confused when his argument is "X should be true" and your reply is "X is not currently true." But even if we were to grant you that this aspect of the debate was going well for you. You can't completely drop an entire other argument against your policy, and think somehow that you re adequately defending your policy. You really aren't. At that point, continuing to mention any other arguments for which you may have already brought up adequate counter-arguments is just a red herring, because those constitute settled dispute, and there is a matter in the debate which is very much unsettled. To illustrate what you're doing, I'll bring back the metro analogy.
Person A: X is prohibitively expensive, redundant
Person B: X is not redundant
Person A: X is still prohibitively expensive
Person B: X is not redundant! X is not redundant! X is not redundant!

And it's not what I'm focusing on at this point. But you better watch the way you use the word subjective. Because the carelessness with which you're using the term really makes you vulnerable to someone from a philosophy background.

 

[kelsier]

You keep interchange words and think ty mean the same thing.

Caffeine IS a stimulant. No one denies this, it's physiological effects are well established. But that doesn't change the fact that it can STILL be a stimulant and not enhance performance. The jury on that is still out.

Because of its well known effects on the CNS, WADA did for a while ban it. The removed the ban ( they never questioned whether it was a stimulant of not, that is settled science) when they determined they could not use objective limits to differentiate those who were using is as a performance enhancing drug and those who simply had high dietary intake.

It's hard to have a rational discussion when one side keeps using non synonymous words interchangeably.

Anyone who tells you caffeine isn't a stimulant, thinks you are too dumb to know the difference.

Words have meanings.

Oh for good grief would you give it some rest already. According to study made in 2013 over 88% of all the house holds in Finland drink coffee on daily basis. And according to you there's some jury out there undecided in regards to whether the majority of the country are punch of dopers. I've often restrained myself from using the internet slang and especially certain word ("lol"), but right now your almost pushing me on the edge. That'll never happen. Ever. Just snap out of it already. If you stopped and considered it even just for a moment, once they'd cross that border where would it end? The Chinese drink tea pretty much as much as the Finns consume coffee and they both consist caffeine. Nevermind the fact that there are people in plenty of countries that either consume one or the other if not both. So the millions would soon turn into billions more dopers according to WADA should your vivid imagination turn into reality. Yeah, we know that's not happening. Oh and before you even start, everyone here is aware there are forms/brands of tea (as well as coffee) that are caffeine free.

Yeah I cannot but concur 100% as far as "rational" discussion is concerned and I just explained the reason. Your grasping for draws, discussing semantics and trying to cut stuff out of the context. Since we were particularly debating over performance enchanting substances. I said coffee isn't a stimulant in a sense of caffeine not being something that boosts up the performance of the athletes. Even if some half-arse genius found a way to argue for some insignificant gain to be had, it'd still have it's downsides (of which I also already explained). Now I really don't know why you have this urge to get so stuck at every said word while forgetting the context on the way, just like you've been doing from the very first time you felt compelled to quote me. Yeah what can I say, words have meaning but they don't tell you the story when you deliberately choose to ignore whatever else it is that follows.

If you have something constructive to add or something you need to discuss and you can keep it within the reason, I have no problem whatsoever, but it's as if I'm talking with someone who's stuck in some kind of a loop and struggling to find a way out. Oh well, enough said I suppose.

 

[sandysan]

no one gives a crap how many finns drink coffee.

and if you could keep up ( its clear you can't) wada would not declare those people dopers because they ADMIT they cannot distinguish those who take the stimulant caffeine ( and make no mistake, friend, it is a god damned CNS stimulant) to enhance performance, and those who take it as part of their every day diet. so unlike chris jericho, its off the list.

you, on the other hand swap illegal, performance enhancing and prohibited like they are freaking synonyms.

the birdman's piss had detectable levels of blow in them, and blow is on the prohibited subtances list. Like the number of finns who drink coffee, no one gives a crap that you think it is somehow deserving of specific consideration or whether it SHOULD have been on the list. it was and it is to this day.

you piss over for a prohibited substance ( and the effects on performance, be damned!) you are a doper.

you want to pretend that's not true, go ahead.

 

[kelsier]

no one gives a crap how many finns drink coffee.

and if you could keep up ( its clear you can't) wada would not declare those people dopers because they ADMIT they cannot distinguish those who take the stimulant caffeine ( and make no mistake, friend, it is a god damned CNS stimulant) to enhance performance, and those who take it as part of their every day diet. so unlike chris jericho, its off the list.

you, on the other hand swap illegal, performance enhancing and prohibited like they are freaking synonyms.

the birdman's piss had detectable levels of blow in them, and blow is on the prohibited subtances list. Like the number of finns who drink coffee, no one gives a crap that you think it is somehow deserving of specific consideration or whether it SHOULD have been on the list. it was and it is to this day.

you piss over for a prohibited substance ( and the effects on performance, be damned!) you are a doper.

you want to pretend that's not true, go ahead.

At one moment you're saying there's some jury out there undecided how to respond to an every day substance used by people around the world and the next you're establishing reasons why that "stimulant" isn't listed amongst the other prohibited substances. Basically jumping in and out between reality and fantasy. Even attempting to comprehend what it is exactly that you so desperately need to establish with all of this, well, lets just say it's becoming quite blurry. Nevermind even just considering the topic of which you have been preaching for some days now - caffeine. By that I mean raising a storm over something so pointless that just goes beyond me. Well if that's the most of your worries then by good riddance, you're heck of a lucky man!

Now if there was some actual reasonable content in your argument or if your statements had some kind of merit in regards to what the author published or with what my initial thoughts were, then just perhaps there would be at least something left here worthy to discuss/debate. Sadly that really isn't the case and since you're dealing with (extremely) hypothetical matter that is entirely irrelevant to the topic, this just isn't the right place. Unfortunately this site does not have a fantasy board either where you could go find whether your theories would have/get support. The reality is that Kuznetsov did not take a piss test where he got busted from drinking too much coffee. So instead of raving with the CAPS on, perhaps just take some and consider the analogy of which kabidjan illustrated. At least there's no harm done.

 

[sandysan]

At one moment you're saying there's some jury out there undecided how to respond to an every day substance used by people around the world and the next you're establishing reasons why that "stimulant" isn't listed amongst the other prohibited substances. Basically jumping in and out between reality and fantasy. Even attempting to comprehend what it is exactly that you so desperately need to establish with all of this, well, lets just say it's becoming quite blurry. Nevermind even just considering the topic of which you have been preaching for some days now - caffeine. By that I mean raising a storm over something so pointless that just goes beyond me. Well if that's the most of your worries then by good riddance, you're heck of a lucky man!

Now if there was some actual reasonable content in your argument or if your statements had some kind of merit in regards to what the author published or with what my initial thoughts were, then just perhaps there would be at least something left here worthy to discuss/debate. Sadly that really isn't the case and since you're dealing with (extremely) hypothetical matter that is entirely irrelevant to the topic, this just isn't the right place. Unfortunately this site does not have a fantasy board either where you could go find whether your theories would have/get support. The reality is that Kuznetsov did not take a piss test where he got busted from drinking too much coffee. So instead of raving with the CAPS on, perhaps just take some and consider the analogy of which kabidjan illustrated. At least there's no harm done.

again if you can't keep up
caffeine IS a stimulant
whether it is a performance enhancer is not universally determined
For some things ( like the paper I linked to) there IS enhancement
you seem to think that so long as something doesnt enhance for EVERY event, that that is enough to be able to use it ( the live in the shadows defense that WADA has an obligation to prove that at that concentration it enhances performance)
that's not how it works, that's not how any of this works.

How it works is they take your piss, they run it on a gc/ms. They look for peaks that correspond to the peaks of the prohibited substance list which is well known and available to everyrone. There are no surprised. if there is a match, they run the B sample. two samples over, and congratulations, you are a doper.

they don't care if it was prescribed by a physician ( Backstrom), they don't care if it helped you hook up with some ladies of the night. they don't care ( physicians exemption excluded)

All they care is whether you have a banned substance in excess of their set limits. Hell you could take something on the prohibited list that demonstrable reduced performance.

you piss over = doper.

 

[kelsier]

again if you can't keep up
caffeine IS a stimulant
whether it is a performance enhancer is not universally determined
For some things ( like the paper I linked to) there IS enhancement
you seem to think that so long as something doesnt enhance for EVERY event, that that is enough to be able to use it ( the live in the shadows defense that WADA has an obligation to prove that at that concentration it enhances performance)
that's not how it works, that's not how any of this works.

How it works is they take your piss, they run it on a gc/ms. They look for peaks that correspond to the peaks of the prohibited substance list which is well known and available to everyrone. There are no surprised. if there is a match, they run the B sample. two samples over, and congratulations, you are a doper.

they don't care if it was prescribed by a physician ( Backstrom), they don't care if it helped you hook up with some ladies of the night. they don't care ( physicians exemption excluded)

All they care is whether you have a banned substance in excess of their set limits. Hell you could take something on the prohibited list that demonstrable reduced performance.

you piss over = doper.

Are you for frigging real? You're repeating the same things over and over like a broken record. And I wished I was even referring to some complicated matters, but no, you're ranting over the same basic fundamentals that we know already. No one even asked about how the tests are performed but hey, guess I accidentally triggered the keyword "piss" so why not go over the toilet as well? Almost literally laughed myself off the chair while I quickly glared at the reply.

Other than parroting and failing to comply to what was actually written you managed to:

- Preach about tests without nobody asking nor caring how they work (as it has nothing to do with drinking coffee)
- Rant non-sense about enchantment while failing to spell it correctly
- Continue pretending to be specialist on the matter and lecture how things work or won't work in WADA (without actually knowing how they do in real life)
- Tell something about "them" not caring, followed by something about piss and doping (like I'm supposed to care?)
- Tell for the "hundredth" time that caffeine is a stimulant, which has been affirmative ages ago. Here, look:

Caffeine is ( unlike both meldonium and coke) both a CNS stimulant AND a proven PED.

Caffeine IS a stimulant. No one denies this, it's physiological effects are well established.

Anyone who tells you caffeine isn't a stimulant, thinks you are too dumb to know the difference.

*knock knock* anyone there? Recognise any of that?

Now imagine if you went out each morning to buy a newspaper and it always had the same story and same headlines. You would probably get bored over time, no?

Did you like read at all what I wrote before? Gotta say I don't think I've ever come across with a HFmember before who just makes up stories as things move forward, which have no relevance whatsoever to what is being talked about. Not knowing how to reply to the actual conversation (while probably failing to grasp the context), so instead just repeating the same absurd narratives again and again, without no one ever asking or caring. Seriously, here's a friendly advice, please read before you write. And if you fail to comprehend the matter at hands, then just don't reply. That is, if you have any will to keep even a shred of that credibility alive in the long run. Nonetheless, I did expect to hear back but this was just absolutely frigging hilarious for just a moment (until it got old and boresome).

Well at least I had a good night laugh. Cheers!

 

[sandysan]

Are you for frigging real? You're repeating the same things over and over like a broken record. And I wished I was even referring to some complicated matters, but no, you're ranting over the same basic fundamentals that we know already. No one even asked about how the tests are performed but hey, guess I accidentally triggered the keyword "piss" so why not go over the toilet as well? Almost literally laughed myself off the chair while I quickly glared at the reply.

Other than parroting and failing to comply to what was actually written you managed to:

- Preach about tests without nobody asking nor caring how they work (as it has nothing to do with drinking coffee)
- Rant non-sense about enchantment while failing to spell it correctly
- Continue pretending to be specialist on the matter and lecture how things work or won't work in WADA (without actually knowing how they do in real life)
- Tell something about "them" not caring, followed by something about piss and doping (like I'm supposed to care?)
- Tell for the "hundredth" time that caffeine is a stimulant, which has been affirmative ages ago. Here, look:



*knock knock* anyone there? Recognise any of that?

Now imagine if you went out each morning to buy a newspaper and it always had the same story and same headlines. You would probably get bored over time, no?

Did you like read at all what I wrote before? Gotta say I don't think I've ever come across with a HFmember before who just makes up stories as things move forward, which have no relevance whatsoever to what is being talked about. Not knowing how to reply to the actual conversation (while probably failing to grasp the context), so instead just repeating the same absurd narratives again and again, without no one ever asking or caring. Seriously, here's a friendly advice, please read before you write. And if you fail to comprehend the matter at hands, then just don't reply. That is, if you have any will to keep even a shred of that credibility alive in the long run. Nonetheless, I did expect to hear back but this was just absolutely frigging hilarious for just a moment (until it got old and boresome).

Well at least I had a good night laugh. Cheers!

so caffeine isnt a CNS stimulant ?
that's a big fat lie.

and in my time on these boards, I have never met anyone who thinks that that the definitions of words are malleable to his or her argument.

That's not how it works. and if you can't keep stimulant, PED and prohibited substance apart, its no wonder your arguments are so vacuous. they are different things ( even if you wished they were not)

 

[NoMessi]

Partypoopers. What is party without cocaine?

Boring.

Lighten up, its not like he took steriods

 

[NoMessi]

Bäckström wasn't cocaine though. That was asthmamedicin.

Which is performance enhancing, something cocaine isnt. Backstrom should be punished more than Kuzy.

 

[Jussi]

Which is performance enhancing, something cocaine isnt. Backstrom should be punished more than Kuzy.

But there were more mitigating factors in that the medicine was not banned, he just dosed it badly, resulting in a positive test.

 

[TT1]

helluva drug

 

[sandysan]

But there were more mitigating factors in that the medicine was not banned, he just dosed it badly, resulting in a positive test.

pseudoephedrine ( above a specific limit) is, in fact, banned. Since 2009, but it is not tested for out of competition,
and the pd/pk of the drug AND how much he was over makes it VERY unlikely that this was a simple dosing error, but who knows ?

the gc/ms knows.

 

[kelsier]

so caffeine isnt a CNS stimulant ?
that's a big fat lie.

and in my time on these boards, I have never met anyone who thinks that that the definitions of words are malleable to his or her argument.

That's not how it works. and if you can't keep stimulant, PED and prohibited substance apart, its no wonder your arguments are so vacuous. they are different things ( even if you wished they were not)

Lets just put it this way, that first phrase right there pretty much tells me everything I needed to hear. Meaning the earlier *knock knock* resonated, but not in the kind of way you'd normally want it to. Seriously, do you honestly believe anyone even cares when basically all that is that you do, is copy and paste your own text off the context - rinse and repeat. Nevermind 24/7 non-sense talk about coffee. At least it seems to be true what they say about it being addictive. Oh, didn't even bother with the question mark there because what was asked was rhetoric.

Anyway I found a place where you might care to visit: http://coffeegeek.com/forums

Your welcome.

 

[sandysan]

Lets just put it this way, that first phrase right there pretty much tells me everything I needed to hear. Meaning the earlier *knock knock* resonated, but not in the kind of way you'd normally want it to. Seriously, do you honestly believe anyone even cares when basically all that is that you do, is copy and paste your own text off the context - rinse and repeat. Nevermind 24/7 non-sense talk about coffee. At least it seems to be true what they say about it being addictive. Oh, didn't even bother with the question mark there because what was asked was rhetoric.

Anyway I found a place where you might care to visit: http://coffeegeek.com/forums

Your welcome.

you keep implying something that suggests that you don't know what the hell you are talking about.

I will ask right now to try and clear this up, once and for all.

IS caffeine a CNS stimulant ? if you say no, you are wrong. that is not an opinion.

And as long as I have unfettered access to pumbed, and the fruits of and advanced degree, I think I can spend my entire life without ever needing to visit the coffee geek forums to tell me what is settled science. was wikipedia 404 ?

but thanks anyways.

 

[kelsier]

you keep implying something that suggests that you don't know what the hell you are talking about.

I will ask right now to try and clear this up, once and for all.

IS caffeine a CNS stimulant ? if you say no, you are wrong. that is not an opinion.

And as long as I have unfettered access to pumbed, and the fruits of and advanced degree, I think I can spend my entire life without ever needing to visit the coffee geek forums to tell me what is settled science. was wikipedia 404 ?

but thanks anyways.

What does it even matter what my response for your caffeine addiction was cause no matter what the heck I say, you're just going to repeat that again or make yet another statement for the Xth amount of time. I can only assume that's because you cannot interpret written English, you simply ignore what's been said or you suffer from the disease called Repetitive Questioning (if you don't know what that means please google it up).

- Tell for the "hundredth" time that caffeine is a stimulant, which has been affirmative ages ago.

What does that tell you? Can you comprehend the fundamental and supposedly crystal clear meaning of the statement? If you do, you have your answer, if you don't then I guess we're back to the three options listed above. Now I've stated many times over that caffeine is a stimulant, but not the kind of stimulant that offers any kind of benefits for the athletes nor does it enchant the performance. Professionals agree since it's clearly listed as an exempt:

https://www.wada-ama.org/sites/default/files/wada_2019_english_prohibited_list.pdf

Why don't you take a moment and ask yourself a very simple question, like where am I? I'll help you out here. You're at a public internet forum that is dedicated to discussion about hockey and hockey alone, that is unless you wonder off to section of "non sports" or "other sports". Should we narrow down even further, we are currently in a topic where the agenda comes down to discussing Kuznetsov abuse of actually illegal and prohibited substance, that is not caffeine, but cocaine. Now in your fantasy world you might have them both at the long list of WADA's performance enchanting substances, but in reality only one of them is prohibited and again Kuznetsov also only used the one that actually was prohibited, meaning cocaine. This obsession of yours has zero relevance to the matter and I simply cannot fathom someone's apparent anxiety and obsession over something so meaningless.

You're derailing so far in your own universe that I'm not sure if even the combination of both previously mentioned would snap you out of it.

 

[sandysan]

What does it even matter what my response for your caffeine addiction was cause no matter what the heck I say, you're just going to repeat that again or make yet another statement for the Xth amount of time. I can only assume that's because you cannot interpret written English, you simply ignore what's been said or you suffer from the disease called Repetitive Questioning (if you don't know what that means please google it up).



What does that tell you? Can you comprehend the fundamental and supposedly crystal clear meaning of the statement? If you do, you have your answer, if you don't then I guess we're back to the three options listed above. Now I've stated many times over that caffeine is a stimulant, but not the kind of stimulant that offers any kind of benefits for the athletes nor does it enchant the performance. Professionals agree since it's clearly listed as an exempt:

https://www.wada-ama.org/sites/default/files/wada_2019_english_prohibited_list.pdf

Why don't you take a moment and ask yourself a very simple question, like where am I? I'll help you out here. You're at a public internet forum that is dedicated to discussion about hockey and hockey alone, that is unless you wonder off to section of "non sports" or "other sports". Should we narrow down even further, we are currently in a topic where the agenda comes down to discussing Kuznetsov abuse of actually illegal and prohibited substance, that is not caffeine, but cocaine. Now in your fantasy world you might have them both at the long list of WADA's performance enchanting substances, but in reality only one of them is prohibited and again Kuznetsov also only used the one that actually was prohibited, meaning cocaine. This obsession of yours has zero relevance to the matter and I simply cannot fathom someone's apparent anxiety and obsession over something so meaningless.

You're derailing so far in your own universe that I'm not sure if even the combination of both previously mentioned would snap you out of it.

I don't need to google whether it is a CNS stimulant. I KNOW that it is.
You on the other hand will all the goalpost moving and conflation of different terms, not so much.

I keep repeating that caffeine is a CNS stimulant for two reasons, one its true. two, you refuse to acknowledge this truth and try to bring up whether it is a PED or something else entirely.

if you dont want to answer a simple question " is caffeine a CNS stimulant", that's ok. Everyone understands your reticence. Everyone.

And for the bold, for the 10th time, at least, that list that you suppose exists, does not. THERE IS NO WADA LIST OF PED's. I thought this has been establsihed, repeatedly, but even if it has if you cant tell your ass from your elbow, it probably wont help.

You reticence to answer very straight forward questions is duely noted.

to head you off at the pass, caffeine is also not a ham sandwich.

 

[kelsier]

I don't need to google whether it is a CNS stimulant. I KNOW that it is.
You on the other hand will all the goalpost moving and conflation of different terms, not so much.

I keep repeating that caffeine is a CNS stimulant for two reasons, one its true. two, you refuse to acknowledge this truth and try to bring up whether it is a PED or something else entirely.

if you dont want to answer a simple question " is caffeine a CNS stimulant", that's ok. Everyone understands your reticence. Everyone.

And for the bold, for the 10th time, at least, that list that you suppose exists, does not. THERE IS NO WADA LIST OF PED's. I thought this has been establsihed, repeatedly, but even if it has if you cant tell your ass from your elbow, it probably wont help.

You reticence to answer very straight forward questions is duely noted.

to head you off at the pass, caffeine is also not a ham sandwich.

See? I wasn't even talking about whether or not caffeine was a stimulant. What I stated was according to the professionals it isn't listed as prohibited substance, yet you were as clueless as ever to what you were referring. In other words I never asked you to google that. So this confirms one if not two out of the three issues I formerly mentioned. i) The inability to understand written English ii) and/or ignoring the presented context. Which leaves us with the symptom (that I did ask you to google) and since you clearly cannot help yourself which you just pretty much admitted, well I don't have the professional degree to evaluate but guess I can at least make an educated guess.

As I was pointing out I had replied to your question. Even presented with an example of affirmation but just as I also mentioned, it wouldn't change anything and I was right, cause here you are again, raving about the same old stuff. I provided the list of the substances prohibited by WADA, caffeine wasn't included and now you're grasping for draws (or should I say words), again? Fully not only ignoring but seemingly even forgetting the context.

At first it was whether substance X was a stimulant and now you're crying a river about whether substance X was a "CNS stimulant". It's a never ending cycle (just add a word and spin the wheel). I've never gone on the record for stating the obvious as false since any person can just google it up and prove me wrong. I mean why not ask me if the sky is blue, when everyone already knew the answer and those that didn't could just type the few words in the URL and get immediate result. After all the WWW doesn't work like med lab where you need to wait for the results. Don't think I've ever had to witness something so petty in my entire time in these boards.

Anyway all of this reminds me of some 10 year old asking, no not asking, but absolutely needing for some kind of approval.

 

[Albatros]

pseudoephedrine ( above a specific limit) is, in fact, banned. Since 2009, but it is not tested for out of competition,
and the pd/pk of the drug AND how much he was over makes it VERY unlikely that this was a simple dosing error, but who knows ?

I believe he had something like 190 µg/ml which is a bit high but still perfectly plausible when taking Zyrtec-D therapeutically. This is something like 20 % over what a typical adult male user would have following the prescription.

 

[sandysan]

I believe he had something like 190 µg/ml which is a bit high but still perfectly plausible when taking Zyrtec-D therapeutically. This is something like 20 % over what a typical adult male user would have following the prescription.

the 190 is a concentration ( weight per volume), and although I do not dispute the 190 number, people back calculated ( based on his extimated blood volume, and pd/pk) how many pills he would have needed to take, and if I rememeber right it was way outside any therapeutic window ( yes you could argue that because of prolonged use out of competition, that he could have developed tolerance with need a larger and larger dose to get the same therapeutic benefit) it still seemed like and unseemly amount of pills.

if its not tested for out of competition ( its not) and it was prescribed ( it was) maybe he thought it was permissable. He probably should have sought a physicians exception, but ultimately how it gets into his blood is 100% his responsibility.

 

[sandysan]

See? I wasn't even talking about whether or not caffeine was a stimulant. What I stated was according to the professionals it isn't listed as prohibited substance, yet you were as clueless as ever to what you were referring. In other words I never asked you to google that. So this confirms one if not two out of the three issues I formerly mentioned. i) The inability to understand written English ii) and/or ignoring the presented context. Which leaves us with the symptom (that I did ask you to google) and since you clearly cannot help yourself which you just pretty much admitted, well I don't have the professional degree to evaluate but guess I can at least make an educated guess.

As I was pointing out I had replied to your question. Even presented with an example of affirmation but just as I also mentioned, it wouldn't change anything and I was right, cause here you are again, raving about the same old stuff. I provided the list of the substances prohibited by WADA, caffeine wasn't included and now you're grasping for draws (or should I say words), again? Fully not only ignoring but seemingly even forgetting the context.

At first it was whether substance X was a stimulant and now you're crying a river about whether substance X was a "CNS stimulant". It's a never ending cycle (just add a word and spin the wheel). I've never gone on the record for stating the obvious as false since any person can just google it up and prove me wrong. I mean why not ask me if the sky is blue, when everyone already knew the answer and those that didn't could just type the few words in the URL and get immediate result. After all the WWW doesn't work like med lab where you need to wait for the results. Don't think I've ever had to witness something so petty in my entire time in these boards.

Anyway all of this reminds me of some 10 year old asking, no not asking, but absolutely needing for some kind of approval.

yet you keep denying that it is anf you keep inventing a ficticious list of PED's that WADA keeps, when they dont.

You fundamentally DO NOT UNDERSTAND how wada functions.

their list is composed of prohibited substances. Within this list, there are in FACT compounds that ARE performance enhancers. there are ALSO substances EQUALLY on the list that have NEVER been proven to enhance performance, and some of which when tested FAILED to enhance performance. Not on the list are some substances that are KNOWN to enhance perfomance.

so stop with this nonsense about a PED list. it does not, it has not. ever existed other than in your crazy head.

the only list that matters is the prohibited substances list. if these are found in your urine, you have committed a doping violation, EVEN if this presence of these drugs did NOTHING ( i,e blow with the birdman) to enhabce your perfomance or even impeded your performance ( you know your gut that says that caffeine cannot enhance performance).

you aren't talking about whether it is are stimulant because you have a preverse adversion to admitting that it does, because you know you are wrong.

you want to end the cycle ? Answer the queastion. Because it is only when you concede things that are true, that people can have a rational discussion. but you are not interested in that, right coffegeek forum member ?

TLDR prohibited substances, PED's and stimulants ARE NOT FREAKING synonyms even if you wished they were

still nothing on caffeine ? Quelle surprise !

 

[Hi ImHFNYR]

yet you keep denying that it is anf you keep inventing a ficticious list of PED's that WADA keeps, when they dont.

You fundamentally DO NOT UNDERSTAND how wada functions.

their list is composed of prohibited substances. Within this list, there are in FACT compounds that ARE performance enhancers. there are ALSO substances EQUALLY on the list that have NEVER been proven to enhance performance, and some of which when tested FAILED to enhance performance. Not on the list are some substances that are KNOWN to enhance perfomance.

so stop with this nonsense about a PED list. it does not, it has not. ever existed other than in your crazy head.

the only list that matters is the prohibited substances list. if these are found in your urine, you have committed a doping violation, EVEN if this presence of these drugs did NOTHING ( i,e blow with the birdman) to enhabce your perfomance or even impeded your performance ( you know your gut that says that caffeine cannot enhance performance).

you aren't talking about whether it is are stimulant because you have a preverse adversion to admitting that it does, because you know you are wrong.

you want to end the cycle ? Answer the queastion. Because it is only when you concede things that are true, that people can have a rational discussion. but you are not interested in that, right coffegeek forum member ?

TLDR prohibited substances, PED's and stimulants ARE NOT FREAKING synonyms even if you wished they were

still nothing on caffeine ? Quelle surprise !

You have utterly embarrassed yourself here

 

[Albatros]

the 190 is a concentration ( weight per volume), and although I do not dispute the 190 number, people back calculated ( based on his extimated blood volume, and pd/pk) how many pills he would have needed to take, and if I rememeber right it was way outside any therapeutic window ( yes you could argue that because of prolonged use out of competition, that he could have developed tolerance with need a larger and larger dose to get the same therapeutic benefit) it still seemed like and unseemly amount of pills.

It was in urine, there's some science regarding this:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1884418/

...the conclusion most importantly:

"Multiple therapeutic dosing of pseudoephedrine or phenylpropanolamine over a 36-h period to healthy subjects produced urine drug concentrations above the drug cut-off values set by the IOC (constituting a doping offence) for as much as 16 h following the final dose. The highest urine drug concentrations occurred, post administration four hours after the final dose. Clearly, athletes need careful advice from their medical practitioner or other health professional, regarding the use of these drugs."

Although Bäckström's body mass is somewhat higher than that of the subjects of this study, probably taking his usual dose twice would still have been enough to reach 190.

 

[sandysan]

You have utterly embarrassed yourself here

if you find the truth embarrassing, that's your cross to bear. perhaps adopt better arguments ?

people talking about WADA's list of PED's are basing their argument on a list that does not exist and and ignorance of how wada works. if people talking from a postition of ignrance is your bag, that's probably ANOTHER cross you have to bear.

All WADA cares about is if there is a spike on the GC/MS that matches one of the many substances on their prohibited list.

 

[kelsier]

yet you keep denying that it is anf you keep inventing a ficticious list of PED's that WADA keeps, when they dont.

You fundamentally DO NOT UNDERSTAND how wada functions.

their list is composed of prohibited substances. Within this list, there are in FACT compounds that ARE performance enhancers. there are ALSO substances EQUALLY on the list that have NEVER been proven to enhance performance, and some of which when tested FAILED to enhance performance. Not on the list are some substances that are KNOWN to enhance perfomance.

so stop with this nonsense about a PED list. it does not, it has not. ever existed other than in your crazy head.

the only list that matters is the prohibited substances list. if these are found in your urine, you have committed a doping violation, EVEN if this presence of these drugs did NOTHING ( i,e blow with the birdman) to enhabce your perfomance or even impeded your performance ( you know your gut that says that caffeine cannot enhance performance).

you aren't talking about whether it is are stimulant because you have a preverse adversion to admitting that it does, because you know you are wrong.

you want to end the cycle ? Answer the queastion. Because it is only when you concede things that are true, that people can have a rational discussion. but you are not interested in that, right coffegeek forum member ?

TLDR prohibited substances, PED's and stimulants ARE NOT FREAKING synonyms even if you wished they were

still nothing on caffeine ? Quelle surprise !

"Ficticious"? Whatever the word that even is, I haven't got a clue. Doh, for the billionth time, I provided official list of substances prohibited by WADA, which includes PEDs. Here have a look smart arse:

"Typically, a substance or method will be considered for the WADA Prohibited List if the substance or method meets any two of the following three criteria:

• It has the potential to enhance or enhances sport performance
• It represents an actual or potential health risk to the athlete
• It violates the spirit of sport"

World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) Prohibited List | USADA

This is like teaching a dog how to speak human language, practically impossible. What's absolutely frigging hilarious is you of all people telling someone, anyone actually that he/she doesn't know how WADA works, while at the same time your contemplating an idea for "jury being out there" for frigging coffee. Seriously, if some of these takes didn't make me laugh so hard I would've stopped wasting time with you a long time ago.


Who argued the list was perfect? No one. In fact, no one even mentioned such a thing and yet your're here again shouting about something of which haven't even been discussed about and it's far away from the first time, but the again I've said as much already and you keep on derailing. Nothing's changed as far as that's concerned. Also finding new dimensions can be great, but again it has nothing to do with what has been debated. Nevermind, how hard can it be to type without the CAPS on really, just like pretty much every other ordinary poster in the board?

I had to bold this one sentence because for once (and I can't believe I'm saying this) you nailed it. Yes exactly the only frigging thing that matters is whether substance really is prohibited. So could you finally just stop with your obsession of turning coffee into something that it isn't now nor will it ever be? Also is it even remotely possible that you would stop posting about details of which every single poster that has ever heard about Worlds' Anti-Doping Agency, testing athletes and what not already know. You don't have to tell how it happens. Why? We do how it happens. So unless you're into golden showers, there's absolutely no need to go into detail. No, actually that includes the possibility that you're into that.

You're telling me I'm wrong even after going into a detail of how easy it is to find an answer and after going on a record that I don't make statements that can be confirmed false in a matter or seconds. I'm not going to be coerced into answering anything. So the fact that you cannot comprehend long written statements that are completely aligned with your question, doesn't prove anything else than perhaps you're IQ is still in the developing stages. I mean after all every time I even bother to post it feels like I'm talking to someone who just hit his puberty. I'm fully aware that replying to your non-sense leads to only more non-sense so I'm not going to start spelling things out for you. I suggest you get your friend (preferably someone older than you) or even a parent to read and interpret and clarify the context, so just perhaps you can move on with your life.

Come again? TLDR ("Too long. Didn't read"), Performance enchanting drugs and stimulants aren't synonyms? Really? Wow that settles it, you Sir are a genius. How did I never come up with that!

Please keep spinning the wheel and the entertainment going! This is getting priceless. Never met anyone so carefree about not being taken seriously or who cared so little about keeping up any kind of online credibility.