Jump to content

Clemson players fail (sample A) drug screen

Hamttx

By Hamttx
in Football

 Share

Recommended Posts

Beau Vine

Beau Vine 54001

Posted
Posted
Quote

Swinney said the players said they have have no clue how ostarine got into their samples. Ostarine is a product used to promote muscle growth.

"This particular substance can come from anything," Swinney said. "And these three players have no clue -- in fact, they thought it was a joke when I called them. They have no clue how this has gotten in their system. It could come from hair products. It could come from a cream. It could come from protein. It could come from a product that you order or buy online that you think there's nothing wrong with it. It could be anything. Literally, it could be a drink -- something in a drink.

giphy.gif

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Hamttx

Hamttx 419

Posted
  • Author
Posted

The timing of this seems a little odd. Though I don’t know how the NCAA determines the who and when part of testing. Does everyone get tested, or just a select few?

I was also unaware of the year suspension if you fail. And of all the Bowl teams these were the only positive’s? It is hard to  believe that they don’t pop one or two for reefer.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
alphahorn

alphahorn 1637

Posted
Posted
3 minutes ago, Sgt Hulk said:

Lol these dudes taking Sarms Osterine sucks anyhow compared to what’s out there. Should have just used the read deal 

what do you base this opinion on, others rave about it:

 
 
 

Ostarine (MK 2866) 2018 – Top 5 Benefits and Side Effects

WHAT IS OSTARINE (MK 2866)?

Ostarine is currently the most popular SARM to build muscle. You can expect between 7 to 15 lbs of muscle gains over several weeks. It works by targeting the androgen receptors that are found in the bone and muscles without affecting the other organs of your body. Moreover, it will not be converted into unwanted hormones that you can expect from steroids. Let’s take a detailed look at the specific benefits of Ostarine.

A study conducted by GTX revealed that MK-2866 increased lean muscle mass and strength in a population of 4800 people (1).

ostarine-before-and-after.jpg-large.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Message Board User

Message Board User 12389

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, alphahorn said:

what do you base this opinion on, others rave about it:

 
 
 

Ostarine (MK 2866) 2018 – Top 5 Benefits and Side Effects

WHAT IS OSTARINE (MK 2866)?

Ostarine is currently the most popular SARM to build muscle. You can expect between 7 to 15 lbs of muscle gains over several weeks. It works by targeting the androgen receptors that are found in the bone and muscles without affecting the other organs of your body. Moreover, it will not be converted into unwanted hormones that you can expect from steroids. Let’s take a detailed look at the specific benefits of Ostarine.

A study conducted by GTX revealed that MK-2866 increased lean muscle mass and strength in a population of 4800 people (1).

ostarine-before-and-after.jpg-large.jpg

MOAR!!!!

/SubliminalHorn & NAIU

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Sgt Hulk

Sgt Hulk 13647

Posted
Posted
7 minutes ago, alphahorn said:

what do you base this opinion on, others rave about it:

 
 
 

Ostarine (MK 2866) 2018 – Top 5 Benefits and Side Effects

WHAT IS OSTARINE (MK 2866)?

Ostarine is currently the most popular SARM to build muscle. You can expect between 7 to 15 lbs of muscle gains over several weeks. It works by targeting the androgen receptors that are found in the bone and muscles without affecting the other organs of your body. Moreover, it will not be converted into unwanted hormones that you can expect from steroids. Let’s take a detailed look at the specific benefits of Ostarine.

A study conducted by GTX revealed that MK-2866 increased lean muscle mass and strength in a population of 4800 people (1).

ostarine-before-and-after.jpg-large.jpg

For another discussion. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Doc Sam Beckett

Doc Sam Beckett 5784

Posted
Posted
34 minutes ago, Zepol87 said:

No way these are the only dudes taking shit like that

It's hard to tell with so much conflicting info regarding this, but I believe every player is tested on the teams in the CFP. I'm obviously biased, but it's hard to believe Dex would jeopardize so much when he is so close to cashing in. It just doesn't make sense with him, but I guess we'll see. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Hamttx

Hamttx 419

Posted
  • Author
Posted

If all this is true it explains a lot. I think most will agree it has been awfully quiet the last few years regarding PED’s.

Sometimes people forget that the NCAA, like MLB, the NFL or even the NBA don’t necessarily want to hurt their own product. They simply want to create the illusion of fair play and a clean sport. Or use the testing to harass those individuals that are problematic.

But a quick google search shows that not only are there are far more compounds  available and being used today then say the late 80’s. The testing to identify those same compounds has become extremely sophisticated as well. I believe that would only happen in a market that is both growing and profitable.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Errestaurants

Errestaurants 2570

Posted
Posted
9 hours ago, Sgt Hulk said:

I know a guy that def didn’t see 7-15lbs in a few weeks either lol

You are not going see much of anything in gaining muscle mass with Cardarine unless you add S4, MK-2866, YK11 etc plus being on MK-677 for at least couple months. Cardarine is pretty good for cutting if stay on it long enough. I get all my Sarms from proven peptides. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Sgt Hulk

Sgt Hulk 13647

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, Errestaurants said:

You are not going see much of anything in gaining muscle mass with Cardarine unless you add S4, MK-2866, YK11 etc plus being on MK-677 for at least couple months. Cardarine is pretty good for cutting if stay on it long enough. I get all my Sarms from proven peptides. 

I’m more of a fan of LGD and RAD.  Cardarine is legit in the endurance front 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Hamttx

Hamttx 419

Posted
  • Author
Posted

I still have not seen an official statement from the NCAA detailing when the testing occurred, how many were tested, and whether all Bowl teams were tested, or only those in the CFP? 

The NCAA should have also covered the subsequent penalties for those that don’t have the luxury of declaring for the draft. I’m not asking for names. But there should have been a statement from the very organization that conducted the testing to send a message that A) they are testing. And, B) there are consequences if you get caught.

By not releasing anything it almost makes them out to be saying “fuck, we caught a few dumb asses”.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
HeHateMe

HeHateMe 882

Posted
Posted (edited)

So when I played, '99-'02, the ncaa would come in and test once or twice a semester. Never during the summer.  They would "randomly" pull 10-15 social security numbers and watch us piss in a cup.  NCAA only tested for PEDs, all recreational tests were in house.  Assuming things haven't changed in the last 15 years, that would mean 20-30% of those tested at Clemson all popped positive for the same substance.  Would be interesting to see what the number would be if all 85 on scholarship were tested.  Doubt it's a coincidence.   But what do I know?  If Dabo says it came from a shampoo, than it probably did. I mean, what does he have to lose?

Edited by HeHateMe
Dumbassery
Link to comment
Share on other sites
dingleberryswitzer

dingleberryswitzer 2724

Posted
Posted
8 hours ago, HeHateMe said:

So when I played, '99-'02, the ncaa would come in and test once or twice a semester. Never during the summer.  They would "randomly" pull 10-15 social security numbers and watch us piss in a cup.  NCAA only tested for PEDs, all recreational tests were in house.  Assuming things haven't changed in the last 15 years, that would mean 20-30% of those tested at Clemson all popped positive for the same substance.  Would be interesting to see what the number would be if all 85 on scholarship were tested.  Doubt it's a coincidence.   But what do I know?  If Dabo says it came from a shampoo, than it probably did. I mean, what does he have to lose?

I would hope there is a threshold where if above  a certain number of tested players test dirty, it triggers them to test the entire team.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Fondren & Main

Fondren & Main 6670

Posted
Posted (edited)
22 minutes ago, Hamttx said:

Then why the fuck did you bother posting this dumb shit?

SARMs aren’t going to make you look like Arnold.  That assertion earlier was laughable.

I should clarify.  What is being marketed is unlikely to have the effects shown above because the supplements in question don’t actually contain the needed chemical compound.

The most likely cause of the failed test are tainted supplements that contain trace amounts of banned substances which don’t even offer an inherent performance advantage.  

Joe Rogan just did a podcast on this very topic going into detail with Jeff Novitzky. Testing has advanced leaps and bounds from the Barry Bonds days.  Just because athletes test positive doesn’t mean they are cheating.  You should take a look at what happened to the Scandinavian cross country skier who was banned for her lip balm causing a positive test.

Edited by Fondren & Main
Link to comment
Share on other sites
runthebone

runthebone 7932

Posted
Posted
25 minutes ago, Fondren & Main said:

Just because athletes test positive doesn’t mean they are cheating.  You should take a look at what happened to the Scandinavian cross country skier who was banned for her lip balm causing a positive test.

I bet she was hot, but we don't know because you didn't post a pic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
SimonBolivar

SimonBolivar 10929

Posted
Posted
9 hours ago, HeHateMe said:

So when I played, '99-'02, the ncaa would come in and test once or twice a semester. Never during the summer.  They would "randomly" pull 10-15 social security numbers and watch us piss in a cup.  NCAA only tested for PEDs, all recreational tests were in house.  Assuming things haven't changed in the last 15 years, that would mean 20-30% of those tested at Clemson all popped positive for the same substance.  Would be interesting to see what the number would be if all 85 on scholarship were tested.  Doubt it's a coincidence.   But what do I know?  If Dabo says it came from a shampoo, than it probably did. I mean, what does he have to lose?

You know that testing done in CFB is laughable. I mean how many teams have players suspended for performance enhancing this decade? It seems pretty rare.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tylerocks

Tylerocks 2551

Posted
Posted
35 minutes ago, Fondren & Main said:

SARMs aren’t going to make you look like Arnold.  That assertion earlier was laughable.

I should clarify.  What is being marketed is unlikely to have the effects shown above because the supplements in question don’t actually contain the needed chemical compound.

The most likely cause of the failed test are tainted supplements that contain trace amounts of banned substances which don’t even offer an inherent performance advantage.  

Joe Rogan just did a podcast on this very topic going into detail with Jeff Novitzky. Testing has advanced leaps and bounds from the Barry Bonds days.  Just because athletes test positive doesn’t mean they are cheating.  You should take a look at what happened to the Scandinavian cross country skier who was banned for her lip balm causing a positive test.

My FIL and I were talking about this the other day.

If a test is showing trace amounts of a banned substance, there should be some science behind it saying the level of this substance isn't enough to give any sort of advantage and pass it off as "trace amounts".  

Link to comment
Share on other sites
jofus

jofus 2266

Posted
Posted
8 minutes ago, Tylerocks said:

My FIL and I were talking about this the other day.

If a test is showing trace amounts of a banned substance, there should be some science behind it saying the level of this substance isn't enough to give any sort of advantage and pass it off as "trace amounts".  

i think there would be too many unknown variables (when  did the substance enter the body, how fast does this person metabolism the substance, etc.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
 Share
Go to topic listing


Football ... Basketball ... Baseball ... Other Sports ... Futbol ... 🤫995🤫 ... Gambling ... Movies & TV ... Music ... Hobbies ... Lulz ... Food & Travel ... Daily Texan ... Business and Markets ... Cloak Room ... Help ... For Sale ... Board Discussion ... Subscribe!... Donate!... Advertise... COOKIE MONSTER!

×
×
  • Create New...