All Blacks Lock Patrick Tuipulotu Cleared

by GunsGermsV2 Mon 06 Feb 2017, 4:08 pm

http://www.the42.ie/patrick-c-new-zealand-failed-drugs-test-3224806-Feb2017/

Now I know why the NZ second row performed so badly against Ireland in Chicago.

Update:

http://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/rugby/all-blacks/89260367/three-awful-months-later-all-blacks-lock-patrick-tuipulotu-is-an-innocent-man

Cleared of wrong doing.

by SecretFly Mon 06 Feb 2017, 4:27 pm

I'm surprised he didn't try 'cough mixture' as the possible source. They all try that one first.

by Kingshu Mon 06 Feb 2017, 4:59 pm

Did read an interesting comment elsewhere, It may be an honest mistake, and the player wasn't trying to cheat.

“Because there is little scientific evidence that nutritional supplements make you healthier, let alone faster or stronger, the industry often laces products with more potent juju like steroids – that way customers get results and come back for more.”

“In 2015 a New York state investigation found that five out of six supplements bought at retailers including Walmart, Target, Walgreens, and GNC did not contain the ingredients listed on their labels. A 2001 IOC-funded study by University of Cologne researchers found that of 634 supplements randomly purchased in North America, Europe, and Australia, 14.8 percent contained steroids. With many supplements contaminated, athletes foolish enough to take them are playing Russian roulette with dope tests.”

Spitting in the Soup – Inside the Dirty Game of Doping in Sports, by Mark Johnson

Lots of sports people do accidentally take something that fails a drugs test, without knowing it, even checking the labels for a list of contents isn't enough, as 80% of supplements contain ingredients not listed on their labels.

For a professional sports person every supplement they take, has to be tested before they can take it. For amateurs its nearly impossible.

As well as honest mistake lets not forget the stupid mistake like Ryohei Yamanaka

Japanese rugby star fails drugs test after trying to grow a moustache
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/rugbyunion/news/8600865/Japanese-rugby-star-fails-drugs-test-after-trying-to-grow-a-moustache.html

by GunsGermsV2 Mon 06 Feb 2017, 5:11 pm

I suspect it was an honest mistake too. I doubt that there are many players dumb enough to mess with drugs at that level.

by SecretFly Mon 06 Feb 2017, 5:28 pm

Kingshu true.

I also read that piece. I don't doubt that nutritional supplements companies would try the old lacing trick, especially is a country with the FDA doing the checks and balances.

So yes - sports people can theoretically and mistakenly take a supposedly innocent product and then pay the price of being accused.

But the supplements industry is a Major business and it appears that pharmaceutical companies are involved in these 'anti-pharmaceutical' or pharmaceutical 'alternative' dietary supplements and additive companies too - i.e. a foot in both camps. The bad guy and the good guy linked in a common profit marketing heaven.
Sport is also big business - lots invested in it, lots of profits looked for as returns, lots and lots of incentives to gain that edge.

Therefore, it wouldn't be beyond the realms of the possible to think that companies could do the lacing not simply to give the edge to supplements that allegedly don't work on their own but also to have that as a fall back 'excuse' for professional athletes that are caught. If there is always a legitimate excuse out there, then the harder it is to prove knowing malpractice by the athlete.

by marty2086 Tue 07 Feb 2017, 10:55 am

The problem is most nutritionists etc around pro teams give them a list of accepted brands and supplements to use to avoid taking something that may be suspect.

The problems arise when you expect the same brand to have the same ingredients across the globe due to differing food safety standards

by Guest Thu 09 Feb 2017, 8:43 am

Cleared

1 in 10,000 case

http://i.stuff.co.nz/sport/rugby/89249101/all-black-lock-patrick-tuipulotu-cleared-of-drugs-charge-and-can-join-blues

by aucklandlaurie Thu 09 Feb 2017, 4:20 pm

When one thinks of all the tests done by six nations rugby, its hard to imagine that the one that happens to be wrong, the player gets sent home early off his teams tour, the disruption imposed on the team and its management, somehow just happens to be a member of the All Blacks? Or does this happen quite regularly?

Lets hope he can put this behind him,and goes on to have a cracker year for the Blues and can return to the ABs.

by GunsGermsV2 Thu 09 Feb 2017, 4:22 pm

aucklandlaurie wrote:When one thinks of all the tests done by six nations rugby, its hard to imagine that the one that happens to be wrong, the player gets sent home early off his teams tour, the disruption imposed on the team and its management, somehow just happens to be a member of the All Blacks? Or does this happen quite regularly?

Lets hope he can put this behind him,and goes on to have a cracker year for the Blues and can return to the ABs.

If that was the case then we did you a favour because he isnt very good. In any case there is not such thing as a guilty All Black, its an oxymoron.

by marty2086 Thu 09 Feb 2017, 4:42 pm

aucklandlaurie wrote:When one thinks of all the tests done by six nations rugby, its hard to imagine that the one that happens to be wrong, the player gets sent home early off his teams tour, the disruption imposed on the team and its management, somehow just happens to be a member of the All Blacks? Or does this happen quite regularly?

Lets hope he can put this behind him,and goes on to have a cracker year for the Blues and can return to the ABs.

Not sure why Six Nations were notifying when the lab is in the US

Are they who are used by the 6 Nations? Or was it because he was in their jurisdiction when the results came in?

by Hammersmith harrier Thu 09 Feb 2017, 4:53 pm

Seems a bit too convenient for me, you don't fail an initial drug test for no reason, suggests that the levels were very low. Personally think B samples should be scrapped.

by marty2086 Thu 09 Feb 2017, 4:59 pm

Hammersmith harrier wrote:Seems a bit too convenient for me, you don't fail an initial drug test for no reason, suggests that the levels were very low. Personally think B samples should be scrapped.

Too convenient?

The samples are taken at the same time, if you read the story its a clear case of why the B sample is taken. Samples can be contaminated and the B sample is only tested if the athlete disputes the A sample and in that case if the B is negative a false positive is assumed

by Hammersmith harrier Thu 09 Feb 2017, 5:10 pm

marty2086 wrote:
Hammersmith harrier wrote:Seems a bit too convenient for me, you don't fail an initial drug test for no reason, suggests that the levels were very low. Personally think B samples should be scrapped.

Too convenient?

The samples are taken at the same time, if you read the story its a clear case of why the B sample is taken. Samples can be contaminated and the B sample is only tested if the athlete disputes the A sample and in that case if the B is negative a false positive is assumed

I'm well aware of why B samples are taken but they give too much leeway for instances like this and contamination is in itself far too convenient an excuse. Too many people look for excuses rather than taking things for what they are.

by SecretFly Thu 09 Feb 2017, 5:12 pm

I'm just glad that it's proven yet again that there are no drugs in rugby. I'll sleep easier tonight.

by Gwlad Thu 09 Feb 2017, 5:32 pm

losing to Ireland, drugs and bugs…whats happening to NZ rugby? Shocked

by marty2086 Thu 09 Feb 2017, 5:50 pm

Hammersmith harrier wrote:
marty2086 wrote:
Hammersmith harrier wrote:Seems a bit too convenient for me, you don't fail an initial drug test for no reason, suggests that the levels were very low. Personally think B samples should be scrapped.

Too convenient?

The samples are taken at the same time, if you read the story its a clear case of why the B sample is taken. Samples can be contaminated and the B sample is only tested if the athlete disputes the A sample and in that case if the B is negative a false positive is assumed

I'm well aware of why B samples are taken but they give too much leeway for instances like this and contamination is in itself far too convenient an excuse. Too many people look for excuses rather than taking things for what they are.

Are you because its not looking that way, please enlighten us as to some of the possible inconvenient truths then

by Guest Thu 09 Feb 2017, 8:05 pm

Too much leeway? You mean a sportsman's reputation and career deserves to be destroyed because of a lab error?

by SecretFly Thu 09 Feb 2017, 8:26 pm

The process is the problem. If the process uses two samples. If the process usually involves the second sample when the first sample is assumed to be positive - then shouldn't the process be fully secret until that second sample is tested?

You can't 'fail' a drugs test if the procedure of the test is that a failure requires both samples to be tested for confirmation.

So who put out the initial pre-final-judgement story? The player? The club? The Testing Lab/administrators?

The bad thing IS that an innocent player hits the headlines - yes.
But the bad thing is also that these false dawn stories only serve to throw up a culture of disbelief that drugs are in any way part of rugby. Too many people crying wolf without full exposure either way just aids the overall culture of silence.
Toulon had an episode some time ago - the accusations of team controlled dubious behaviour with a drugs slant. What became of that story? Was there any formal investigations? Any conclusions reached that might have gotten into an English language rugby paper/section or two?

These drugs stories seem to pop up and then fade quickly and the belief that it's all clean and lovely settles in again.

by Guest Thu 09 Feb 2017, 8:54 pm

I don't think rugby is clean but Patrick is found to be and that's the take home message. For 3 months we were told Patrick was not playing or training for 'personal' reasons. The media got wind of what those personal reasons were and blew it up as they're prone to do. Now, they have egg on their faces because the process was incomplete and some will always think wrongly that Patrick takes PEDs. It's BS and there should be gag orders on these things so a sportsman can sue a media outlet for damages in such cases.

by marty2086 Thu 09 Feb 2017, 9:20 pm

ebop wrote:I don't think rugby is clean but Patrick is found to be and that's the take home message. For 3 months we were told Patrick was not playing or training for 'personal' reasons. The media got wind of what those personal reasons were and blew it up as they're prone to do. Now, they have egg on their faces because the process was incomplete and some will always think wrongly that Patrick takes PEDs. It's BS and there should be gag orders on these things so a sportsman can sue a media outlet for damages in such cases.

The media rightly reported the facts, that a positive test had come back and that it wasn't for personal reasons that he was sent home as the ABs had told everyone, the only ones to blow it up as you say were a few blowhards and some idiots in the French media

Though Im not sure why he wasn't training with the Blues as suspensions don't usually cover training, especially when the B sample hadn't been tested yet

You are the one though saying PEDs and theres been no mention of such a thing and theres been no mention of what the substance may have been that showed up, it could easily be that the A sample was correct and the B sample was the one that was contaminated which caused the substance to be destroyed or diluted

by Guest Thu 09 Feb 2017, 9:35 pm

SecretFly wrote:You can't 'fail' a drugs test if the procedure of the test is that a failure requires both samples to be tested for confirmation

If Patrick's case is a 1 in 10,000 event then that doesn't sound like sportsman are getting off by having their B samples tested. Sounds like a lab error to me and these things happen even in the best of labs.

by Guest Fri 10 Feb 2017, 5:16 am

marty2086 wrote:The media rightly reported the facts, that a positive test had come back and that it wasn't for personal reasons

No, it's supposed to have been confidential until the B sample was tested, hence the line about 'personal reasons'. Patrick was bewildered as to how something showed up in the A sample, so requested his B sample be tested, and low and behold.....NOTHING!

marty2086 wrote:......it could easily be that the A sample was correct and the B sample was the one that was contaminated which caused the substance to be destroyed or diluted

So you're saying he could still be a drugs cheat?

You proved my point

by aucklandlaurie Fri 10 Feb 2017, 7:51 am

marty2086 wrote:
ebop wrote:I don't think rugby is clean but Patrick is found to be and that's the take home message. For 3 months we were told Patrick was not playing or training for 'personal' reasons. The media got wind of what those personal reasons were and blew it up as they're prone to do. Now, they have egg on their faces because the process was incomplete and some will always think wrongly that Patrick takes PEDs. It's BS and there should be gag orders on these things so a sportsman can sue a media outlet for damages in such cases.

The media rightly reported the facts, that a positive test had come back and that it wasn't for personal reasons that he was sent home as the ABs had told everyone, the only ones to blow it up as you say were a few blowhards and some idiots in the French media

Though Im not sure why he wasn't training with the Blues as suspensions don't usually cover training, especially when the B sample hadn't been tested yet

You are the one though saying PEDs and theres been no mention of such a thing and theres been no mention of what the substance may have been that showed up, it could easily be that the A sample was correct and the B sample was the one that was contaminated which caused the substance to be destroyed or diluted

Isnt there a clause in the World Rugby anti doping regulations that defines a period of suspension in which the player can not return to training?

by marty2086 Fri 10 Feb 2017, 9:44 am

aucklandlaurie wrote:
marty2086 wrote:
ebop wrote:I don't think rugby is clean but Patrick is found to be and that's the take home message. For 3 months we were told Patrick was not playing or training for 'personal' reasons. The media got wind of what those personal reasons were and blew it up as they're prone to do. Now, they have egg on their faces because the process was incomplete and some will always think wrongly that Patrick takes PEDs. It's BS and there should be gag orders on these things so a sportsman can sue a media outlet for damages in such cases.

The media rightly reported the facts, that a positive test had come back and that it wasn't for personal reasons that he was sent home as the ABs had told everyone, the only ones to blow it up as you say were a few blowhards and some idiots in the French media

Though Im not sure why he wasn't training with the Blues as suspensions don't usually cover training, especially when the B sample hadn't been tested yet

You are the one though saying PEDs and theres been no mention of such a thing and theres been no mention of what the substance may have been that showed up, it could easily be that the A sample was correct and the B sample was the one that was contaminated which caused the substance to be destroyed or diluted

Isnt there a clause in the World Rugby anti doping regulations that defines a period of suspension in which the player can not return to training?

Had a quick look and couldn't see anything about doping suspensions, even when banned for a full failure Im pretty sure players are allowed to train

by Guest Fri 10 Feb 2017, 9:55 am

WR suspended him

"It's understood that under WADA regulations, Tuipulotu would have been permitted to take an active part in the Blues' preseason. It's World Rugby who have suspended him, although for how long remains unclear"

http://i.stuff.co.nz/sport/rugby/all-blacks/89108781/all-blacks-lock-patrick-tuipulotu-shocked-by-positive-drug-test

by Hammersmith harrier Fri 10 Feb 2017, 10:06 am

ebop wrote:
marty2086 wrote:The media rightly reported the facts, that a positive test had come back and that it wasn't for personal reasons
No, it's supposed to have been confidential until the B sample was tested, hence the line about 'personal reasons'. Patrick was bewildered as to how something showed up in the A sample, so requested his B sample be tested, and low and behold.....NOTHING!

marty2086 wrote:......it could easily be that the A sample was correct and the B sample was the one that was contaminated which caused the substance to be destroyed or diluted
So you're saying he could still be a drugs cheat?

You proved my point

His A sample didn't fail for no reason, most probably trace amounts that then didn't show up in the B sample, to assume his innocence because he was bewildered is absurd. In my honest opinion and history suggests one way with regard to your second point.

Contamination is the flimsiest excuse there is, almost as good as the old red meat excuse for Nandrolone.

by marty2086 Fri 10 Feb 2017, 10:10 am

Hammersmith harrier wrote:
ebop wrote:
marty2086 wrote:The media rightly reported the facts, that a positive test had come back and that it wasn't for personal reasons
No, it's supposed to have been confidential until the B sample was tested, hence the line about 'personal reasons'. Patrick was bewildered as to how something showed up in the A sample, so requested his B sample be tested, and low and behold.....NOTHING!

marty2086 wrote:......it could easily be that the A sample was correct and the B sample was the one that was contaminated which caused the substance to be destroyed or diluted
So you're saying he could still be a drugs cheat?

You proved my point

His A sample didn't fail for no reason, most probably trace amounts that then didn't show up in the B sample, to assume his innocence because he was bewildered is absurd. In my honest opinion and history suggests one way with regard to your second point.

Contamination is the flimsiest excuse there is, almost as good as the old red meat excuse for Nandrolone.

Oh FFS are you at this again?

What you are talking about is impossible. It is the same urine, they are literally taken at the same time. Are you trying to suggest the jar was able to breakdown the substance or something akin to how the body would? picard

Your opinion is clearly that of someone without a clue

by Hammersmith harrier Fri 10 Feb 2017, 10:12 am

It's not impossible at all, happens throughout sport all the time, if you can explain how one sample gets contaminated and the other doesn't then please do.

by No 7&1/2 Fri 10 Feb 2017, 10:16 am

To be honest the only sport where I have any confidence of their testing is cycling. So good it damages their own brand.

by marty2086 Fri 10 Feb 2017, 10:17 am

ebop wrote:
marty2086 wrote:The media rightly reported the facts, that a positive test had come back and that it wasn't for personal reasons
No, it's supposed to have been confidential until the B sample was tested, hence the line about 'personal reasons'. Patrick was bewildered as to how something showed up in the A sample, so requested his B sample be tested, and low and behold.....NOTHING!

marty2086 wrote:......it could easily be that the A sample was correct and the B sample was the one that was contaminated which caused the substance to be destroyed or diluted
So you're saying he could still be a drugs cheat?

You proved my point

It was meant to be confidential on the testing and governance end, the media were under no such obligation. If he was so bewildered why did he take so long to allow the test on the B sample?

I am saying he could still be a drug cheat but not been caught, it all depends on what the substance was. As how could a banned substance get into a sealed container or a sterile lab?

by marty2086 Fri 10 Feb 2017, 10:19 am

Hammersmith harrier wrote:It's not impossible at all, happens throughout sport all the time, if you can explain how one sample gets contaminated and the other doesn't then please do.

You do realise they are in separate jars and tested separately? It could be contaminated lab equipment, something on a hand or lab coat

Can you explain how urine can both have something in it and not have something in it?

by Guest Fri 10 Feb 2017, 10:25 am

Exactly

It's the sample that has 'nothing' in it that overides the result

by Guest Fri 10 Feb 2017, 10:29 am

marty, fair call on the media, just doing what they're doing

by aucklandlaurie Fri 10 Feb 2017, 1:21 pm

marty2086 wrote:
aucklandlaurie wrote:
marty2086 wrote:
ebop wrote:I don't think rugby is clean but Patrick is found to be and that's the take home message. For 3 months we were told Patrick was not playing or training for 'personal' reasons. The media got wind of what those personal reasons were and blew it up as they're prone to do. Now, they have egg on their faces because the process was incomplete and some will always think wrongly that Patrick takes PEDs. It's BS and there should be gag orders on these things so a sportsman can sue a media outlet for damages in such cases.

The media rightly reported the facts, that a positive test had come back and that it wasn't for personal reasons that he was sent home as the ABs had told everyone, the only ones to blow it up as you say were a few blowhards and some idiots in the French media

Though Im not sure why he wasn't training with the Blues as suspensions don't usually cover training, especially when the B sample hadn't been tested yet

You are the one though saying PEDs and theres been no mention of such a thing and theres been no mention of what the substance may have been that showed up, it could easily be that the A sample was correct and the B sample was the one that was contaminated which caused the substance to be destroyed or diluted

Isnt there a clause in the World Rugby anti doping regulations that defines a period of suspension in which the player can not return to training?

Had a quick look and couldn't see anything about doping suspensions, even when banned for a full failure Im pretty sure players are allowed to train

Marty, You might have to re-read the regulation and this time not so quickly.

by marty2086 Fri 10 Feb 2017, 1:27 pm

aucklandlaurie wrote:
marty2086 wrote:
aucklandlaurie wrote:
marty2086 wrote:
ebop wrote:I don't think rugby is clean but Patrick is found to be and that's the take home message. For 3 months we were told Patrick was not playing or training for 'personal' reasons. The media got wind of what those personal reasons were and blew it up as they're prone to do. Now, they have egg on their faces because the process was incomplete and some will always think wrongly that Patrick takes PEDs. It's BS and there should be gag orders on these things so a sportsman can sue a media outlet for damages in such cases.

The media rightly reported the facts, that a positive test had come back and that it wasn't for personal reasons that he was sent home as the ABs had told everyone, the only ones to blow it up as you say were a few blowhards and some idiots in the French media

Though Im not sure why he wasn't training with the Blues as suspensions don't usually cover training, especially when the B sample hadn't been tested yet

You are the one though saying PEDs and theres been no mention of such a thing and theres been no mention of what the substance may have been that showed up, it could easily be that the A sample was correct and the B sample was the one that was contaminated which caused the substance to be destroyed or diluted

Isnt there a clause in the World Rugby anti doping regulations that defines a period of suspension in which the player can not return to training?

Had a quick look and couldn't see anything about doping suspensions, even when banned for a full failure Im pretty sure players are allowed to train

There are about 40 pages to the handbook, why not point me in the right direction

Marty, You might have to re-read the regulation and this time not so quickly.

by aucklandlaurie Fri 10 Feb 2017, 1:30 pm

marty2086 wrote:
aucklandlaurie wrote:
marty2086 wrote:
aucklandlaurie wrote:
marty2086 wrote:
ebop wrote:I don't think rugby is clean but Patrick is found to be and that's the take home message. For 3 months we were told Patrick was not playing or training for 'personal' reasons. The media got wind of what those personal reasons were and blew it up as they're prone to do. Now, they have egg on their faces because the process was incomplete and some will always think wrongly that Patrick takes PEDs. It's BS and there should be gag orders on these things so a sportsman can sue a media outlet for damages in such cases.

The media rightly reported the facts, that a positive test had come back and that it wasn't for personal reasons that he was sent home as the ABs had told everyone, the only ones to blow it up as you say were a few blowhards and some idiots in the French media

Though Im not sure why he wasn't training with the Blues as suspensions don't usually cover training, especially when the B sample hadn't been tested yet

You are the one though saying PEDs and theres been no mention of such a thing and theres been no mention of what the substance may have been that showed up, it could easily be that the A sample was correct and the B sample was the one that was contaminated which caused the substance to be destroyed or diluted

Isnt there a clause in the World Rugby anti doping regulations that defines a period of suspension in which the player can not return to training?

Had a quick look and couldn't see anything about doping suspensions, even when banned for a full failure Im pretty sure players are allowed to train

There are about 40 pages to the handbook, why not point me in the right direction

Marty, You might have to re-read the regulation and this time not so quickly.

Try Regulation 21.10.12.2.

If there is a prescribed period when a player cant return to training. then there must be a suspension in the first place.

by marty2086 Fri 10 Feb 2017, 1:46 pm

Laurie that would apply to those who have received a ban not someone waiting on a b sample

by aucklandlaurie Fri 10 Feb 2017, 3:17 pm

Anyway he was made a popular return to the Blues training yesterday.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/rugby/news/article.cfm?c_id=80&objectid=11798312

by Exiledinborders Fri 10 Feb 2017, 5:12 pm

marty2086 wrote:
Hammersmith harrier wrote:It's not impossible at all, happens throughout sport all the time, if you can explain how one sample gets contaminated and the other doesn't then please do.

You do realise they are in separate jars and tested separately? It could be contaminated lab equipment, something on a hand or lab coat

Can you explain how urine can both have something in it and not have something in it?

It could be that one sample is just under the limit and comes back clear and one is just over.

by aucklandlaurie Sat 11 Feb 2017, 6:22 am

Exiledinborders wrote:
marty2086 wrote:
Hammersmith harrier wrote:It's not impossible at all, happens throughout sport all the time, if you can explain how one sample gets contaminated and the other doesn't then please do.

You do realise they are in separate jars and tested separately? It could be contaminated lab equipment, something on a hand or lab coat

Can you explain how urine can both have something in it and not have something in it?
It could be that one sample is just under the limit and comes back clear and one is just over.

Could be the different ages of the samples at the time of lab testing. In this case I believe sample B was tested over two months after sample A.

by Hammersmith harrier Sat 11 Feb 2017, 1:02 pm

Exiledinborders wrote:
marty2086 wrote:
Hammersmith harrier wrote:It's not impossible at all, happens throughout sport all the time, if you can explain how one sample gets contaminated and the other doesn't then please do.

You do realise they are in separate jars and tested separately? It could be contaminated lab equipment, something on a hand or lab coat

Can you explain how urine can both have something in it and not have something in it?
It could be that one sample is just under the limit and comes back clear and one is just over.

Spot on and the point i'd been trying to make, we're usually talking about trace amounts in the blood so low that they're not always detectable, what shows up in one drop of blood might not in another.

by marty2086 Sat 11 Feb 2017, 1:18 pm

Hammersmith harrier wrote:
Exiledinborders wrote:
marty2086 wrote:
Hammersmith harrier wrote:It's not impossible at all, happens throughout sport all the time, if you can explain how one sample gets contaminated and the other doesn't then please do.

You do realise they are in separate jars and tested separately? It could be contaminated lab equipment, something on a hand or lab coat

Can you explain how urine can both have something in it and not have something in it?
It could be that one sample is just under the limit and comes back clear and one is just over.

Spot on and the point i'd been trying to make, we're usually talking about trace amounts in the blood so low that they're not always detectable, what shows up in one drop of blood might not in another.

Still clueless, not only was it a urine sample but a trace of something is not enough to fail a drugs test. Depending on the substance it has to be an amount above a certain level

by Hammersmith harrier Sat 11 Feb 2017, 1:22 pm

Urine is far less reliable than blood so only backing up my point there Marty, a trace amount of certain substances is enough to fail a drugs test, we have no idea what he actually failed it for.

by marty2086 Sat 11 Feb 2017, 1:45 pm

Hammersmith harrier wrote:Urine is far less reliable than blood so only backing up my point there Marty, a trace amount of certain substances is enough to fail a drugs test, we have no idea what he actually failed it for.

Yes urine is far less reliable because its easier to find substances in the blood so it doesnt back up your point, if something is in one sample it will still be in another and no trace amounts still isnt enough Rolling Eyes

by Hammersmith harrier Sat 11 Feb 2017, 1:49 pm

marty2086 wrote:
Hammersmith harrier wrote:Urine is far less reliable than blood so only backing up my point there Marty, a trace amount of certain substances is enough to fail a drugs test, we have no idea what he actually failed it for.

Yes urine is far less reliable because its easier to find substances in the blood so it doesnt back up your point, if something is in one sample it will still be in another and no trace amounts still isnt enough

It might not necessarily show up in both samples, it's a point you seem unable to understand or are unwilling to accept. I'm not sure how you've come to the conclusion that trace amounts aren't enough but they are for anabolic steroids, they however aren't enough for things like Testosterone where it needs to be elevated levels.

by Sponsored content