nosferatu
-
Posts
1,811 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
5
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Store
Posts posted by nosferatu
-
-
Prove it.
no
-
You're really trying to put caffeine and a drug that was designed for medical reasons & had to be prescribed in the same bracket?
ETA FFS!
WADA used to have caffeine on the banned list but not this drug.
Take it up with WADA.
-
Yeah we've had a difficult run of games and we've came up just short. We should have got at least a point at Palmerston, we should have beaten Falkirk at home, we almost got a point at Ibrox and we almost got a point at Starks.
Shots on goal are a good way of determining how a game really went (if we discount the goals scored copyright. Tom Hendrie). Bear in mind that it takes 9 shots on goal to score a goal, on average.
Against QoS, the stats were QoS 11 - 17 St. Mirren. So we probably did deserve at least a point.
Against Falkirk it was 10 - 7 in our favour so a draw was probably the correct result.
Against the new club it was 21 - 8 in the new club's favour. So we were actually lucky to get away with just a 1-0 defeat.
Against Raith it was 16 - 8 in our favour. A freakish result you could say. Stats also possibly swayed by the fact that Saints were always chasing the game. We probably deserved a point in this game.
So, in summary, I agree with your assessment of the games against QoS & Raith but the results against Falkirk & Rangers were about right.
-
This, as I see it, is a major issue.
She was using this drug for nothing more than the effects it had on her body to gain an advantage, not a a medical requirement.
You call it a competitive advantage, I call it unfair and cheating.
Now it's officially a banned substance as it became clear it was being used for cheating.
It was being used to gain a competetive advantage. If wasn't cheating until it went on the banned list!
Ffs
-
Getting access to a drug like that requires at least one of two things
- A medical condition that warrants the prescription, making it free to you via a health service or health insurance plan, or
- having the money to be able pay a physician who will prescribe it for you, knowing that it is not medically required.
But caffeine was once in the banned list and is currently monitored (meaning it could be banned in future again).
Its cheap and widely available.
If caffeine is banned sometime in the future does that mean that all athletes who currently drink 2 or 3 cups of coffee are cheating?
-
Rangers used EBTs. Not illegal, but they gained an unfair advantage. For me 'illegal' is as much a moral question as a legal one.
If she was genuinely using the drug for a medical condition then that should have been brought to the attention of the sport's authorities as exemptions can be made. The authorities had it on a watched list for a year at least prior to banning. And could the medication be changed for an alternative as soon as it went on the watched list prior to it being banned? If a change was not possible is she then and now putting her sport above her health? If an alternative is available why was that not substituted knowing a banning was a possibility? Too many pertinent questions need answering. Or she knew all along that the drug was performance enhancing and the stories about a health issue are to stop her sponsors from walking away.
The EBTs may not have been illegal but the improper registration of players in order to make the EBTs work is where they cheated.
-
Not necessarily so, presumably it is now banned for it's hitherto undetected or unproven performance enhancing qualities. The fact that it was legal does not mean that taking it was not cheating, it just means that the case had not yet been accepted.
My reading is that it was not on the banned list pre Jan 2016 so taking it was not cheating (just as drinking a lot of coffee now is not cheating).
However, post Jan 2016 it is cheating (just as drinking loads of coffee used to be cheating).
-
Presumably, there are side effects to this medication. With that in mind it becomes a gamble on the part of the athlete as to whether or not they take the stuff. I'm sure some have probably decided not to take it, but are taking something else, In that sense, being successful is less about your sporting abilities and more about how good you are at finding the sporting equivalent of legal highs.
for example, If Murray was to know all the stuff Djokovic takes, and vice versa, then they could even out that part of the playing field
I would imagine that most athletes know pretty much everything out there.
-
If she was taking a drug suspected of being performance enhancing even before it was banned then she was cheating. Maybe not in the Sports' laws but morally. The authorities and athletes and her advisors knew meldonium was being investigated. She was trying to gain an unfair advantage just like the bigots up the road.
But surely its not "unfair" if its available for all athletes to use?
Caffeine used to be on the banned list. Now its not but its still being monitored. Is it cheating to drink a coffee before taking part in an athletic event?
Beetroot juice has several scientific studies which show that it enhances aerobic performance (the active ingredient being nitric oxide). Its not on the monitored list and its never been banned. I drink it every day personally.
Is that cheating?
What if WADA decides sometime in the future to put a limit on nitric oxide blood levels (or whatever)? Does that mean that anyone who used to drink a lot of beetroot juice cheated?
-
Without a doubt she is a cheat. She was using this drug to enhance her performance, it wasn't banned because the authorities didn't realise that it was a performance enhancing drug. Once they found out it was they banned it.
She would have got away with it had she stopped using it but she continued using it after it was banned.
As shull would say f**k her.
I would agree.
Either her team have made an erse of it by not keeping up with changes to the banned list of Sharapova didn't disclose to her team that she was taking this drug.
-
Who needs qualified medical doctors when you have the internet and a numpty with a keyboard.
So, you need to be professionally qualified in a subject before you can comment on it on a football forum?
Ironic when you consider the erse you have made of a number of subjects on this forum for which you pretend you are professionally qualified!
-
Great to see so many talented youngsters coming through.
Hopefully it won't be long until we see kids such as Carswell, Gow & Goodwin getting a game in the first team.
-
If we had win today, we would most certainly have been in the hunt for 4th place!
-
Shh. He'll start a thread about hobbies!
A thread about jobbies would be good...
-
C'mon Leicester!
-
There wasn't much effort at all. It was all posts you made on this thread in the last couple of days. If your memory is shite then that's your problem. What you are really saying is that you lied. You knew you were time served in July 1990 so why would you say that you had earned £60,000 in the last tax year of your apprenticeship. You were obviously just trying to make yourself sound "important" - again.
It's not my fault that what was there yesterday isn't there today. I told you what I put in and what it came back with. If you don't believe me then that's up to you.
I'm not into scoring points. That's your department, Babykiller.
It has relevance to whether you are to be believed in other things when the extent of your lies makes Walter Mitty look truthful.
But anyway, even if you had only been on £90 per week from April to end of June, that would still mean that you are claiming to have been earning over £1,500 per week in the last 9 months of the 1990-91 tax year. Is that what you are claiming now? An annual salary of around £78,000. You now claim to be earning about £150,000 per year. So your salary hasn't even doubled in the last 25 years? You must be really shit at your job. I thought you said that you had been head hunted. More like you had your head clubbed.
You are amusing, though, in a point and laugh kind of way.
Deary me!
On the verge of tears!
Meltdown
-
You quoted a post that stated 0.5% and told Stuart to do the maths.No I didnt.
I didnt mention the Bank of England in any post whatsoever.
You made a right fcuking arse of it yet again.
Like Ernie, you can't even do simple % calculations.
You fat, lazy, lonely, lowly paid lecturer.
-
See, that's appropriate use of a smiley!!
I wasn't being sarcastic though
-
We could still be in the playoffs
We wont be in any play offs this season - neither up nor down
-
I hope so, the smiley used doesn't really show that tbh though... A wee cheeky tongue out or a wink would do the job - sarcasm fail IMO!
Knowing Mr Zo, think it was sarcasm.
He is a cnut right enough...
-
There is no need to go overboard.
Football is a game of random chance as well as skill.
I remember back in the season we last won this league in 2006...
We put 4 past Ross County in Dingwall one week despite County having more shots on goal than us.
The following week we conceded 4 at Dundee despite the fact that we'd had more attempts on goal than Dundee and mote attempts on goal than we'd had in Dingwall.
Its long term trends that matter. Don't get hung up on individual games.
Next season will be Alex Rae's chance to prove himself.
-
There has been literally no proof that he is not the answer. He has taken the same squad plus one or two better players and has made them an infinitely better team. With no opportunity yet to build his own team, and no pre-season behind him, it is simply not possible to draw that sort of conclusion.
I think Mr Zo was being sarcastic?
-
Still time for another 3...
-
Seeing as he was "headhunted" for his job then they probably cut him a bit of slack. He'll obviously be too important for disciplinary action.
If he had then he wouldn't just be the night watchman.
trawler ===> sardines ===> ernie
Sharapova - Cheat Or Not
in General Nonsense
Posted
I haven't read a single post where anyone has said that they think she is innocent.
A couple have pointed however, correctly, that she hasn't been found guilty yet. She may well be able to 'prove' her innocence (albeit that doesn't mean that everyone will believe it).
IMO, she took the drug because she thought it was performance enhancing. The drug wasn't on the banned list so, IMO, she wasn't cheating. Indeed, the reason the drug wasn't on the banned list was no doubt because of the lack of evidence to prove that it's performance enhancing. I haven't looked into it but I doubt that there is any overwhelming evidence even now that its enhances performance.
Somehow she has missed that the drug was on the banned list so its now cheating unless she can somehow get a medical exemption (which she probably will).
All IMO.