Mohammad Asifs "B" sample positive for steroids

[Sureshot]

I can't find a set date for the tribunal on CricInfo.

 

[Insomniac]

I never saw a set date either, all the media reported was mid-September, and mid-September should have passed in everyone's eyes by now...

 

[vaibhav mehta]

My Pleasure,
http://content-ind.cricinfo.com/ci/content/story/370947.html?CMP=OTC-RSS

 

[Sureshot]

Can't see a date on that page. Found one on this page:

http://content-ind.cricinfo.com/ci/content/story/371097.html

 

[vaibhav mehta]

Thanks for link.So more 15 days,I guess.

 

[tech.007]

Did Asif really took drugs..........worst thing to happen to a young cricketer....

 

[usy]

you guys need to get over it, move on, it's like a year old story...

 

[Sureshot]

Even though there is a court case in just over a fortnight?

 

[Insomniac]

I already mentioned that I don't care from where you brought your analysis?
I was just referring because I have laterally read the same lines on other forums.
And if you interested in my point then I have read better arguments of security on other forums.But you have two understand that A Traveler and A cricketer are two different terms.
If you ask me to visit Pakistan,I'll do that any day because I know I'll be safe and terrorism risk will be same as India.so in directly security concern is satisfactory for me but these arrangements are not justify your arguments that Australia cricketers would have been safe in Pakistan.
You have to accept that Pakistan is not currently a place of choice for Cricket not at least for CT.



What was the sentence? Oh ya Clutching the Straws ha?

If its not your interest, why post it?

And what are you on about? Laterally read the same lines? That honestly does not make sense.

Clutching on straws? Thats a ridiculous comment, for various reasons.

1) You're pointing out that I posted an excellent analogy. You say its not your interest, so why do it?

2) You were posting false information and using your status as a doctor to almost cause everyone here to trust your information. Is it odd that every single study conducted in the US and UK (whose countries are technologically way further than India, where I believe you studied / study) is contradicting what you said?

Now I'm not defending Asif, but I think you need to take responsibility for what you said, because you are the only person who says 0.8 - 1.0, while everyone else has 1.8+.

If you still have not realized what I'm talking about, then think Nandrolone

 

[vaibhav mehta]

If its not your interest, why post it?

And what are you on about? Laterally read the same lines? That honestly does not make sense.

Clutching on straws? Thats a ridiculous comment, for various reasons.

1) You're pointing out that I posted an excellent analogy. You say its not your interest, so why do it?

2) You were posting false information and using your status as a doctor to almost cause everyone here to trust your information. Is it odd that every single study conducted in the US and UK (whose countries are technologically way further than India, where I believe you studied / study) is contradicting what you said?

Now I'm not defending Asif, but I think you need to take responsibility for what you said, because you are the only person who says 0.8 - 1.0, while everyone else has 1.8+.

If you still have not realized what I'm talking about, then think Nandrolone

Ya I am still ready to defend every sentences I have said.
Just open a new thread for Nandrolone and bring your all random internet searches.If you will prove any of my comment false then I'll leave PC forever and if you can't then you will do favor for all PC member and leave PC.
Deal?

vaibhav mehta added 9 Minutes and 29 Seconds later...

2) You were posting false information and using your status as a doctor to almost cause everyone here to trust your information. Is it odd that every single study conducted in the US and UK (whose countries are technologically way further than India, where I believe you studied / study) is contradicting what you said?

Well Firstly this is not a Medical forum and I never forced anyone to trust my information though they can't be wrong if its abut medicine.
Secondly I have not studied in India(remember again).

If you think you can challenge some medical person with your internet researches then join http://www.indiandoctorsforum.org/
You will find me there with same username (Dr Vaibhav Mehta).It will make you realize what is knowledge in the world?


Also to prove my all points I don't need to post even a link like you.I have posted them all either from the book of ''Anabolic Steroids and the Athlete By William N. Taylor'' or from Dr. Jensen's Guide to Body Chemistry & Nutrition by Bernard Jensen (Author), Bernard Jensen PhD (Author).

vaibhav mehta added 31 Minutes and 18 Seconds later...

Now I'm not defending Asif, but I think you need to take responsibility for what you said, because you are the only person who says 0.8 - 1.0, while everyone else has 1.8+.

Are you telling me about error value of 0.8 -1.0 ng per ml.?
And you are saying it should be more than 1.8?
What are you on about ha?

Vaiby, you may be a doctor, but I think you have been officially owned. 6.2 is NOTHING.

and this will prove that you have no concept about Anabolic steroids.

 

[Insomniac]

Ya I am still ready to defend every sentences I have said.
Just open a new thread for Nandrolone and bring your all random internet searches.If you will prove any of my comment false then I'll leave PC forever and if you can't then you will do favor for all PC member and leave PC.
Deal?

vaibhav mehta added 9 Minutes and 29 Seconds later...



Well Firstly this is not a Medical forum and I never forced anyone to trust my information though they can't be wrong if its abut medicine.
Secondly I have not studied in India(remember again).

If you think you can challenge some medical person with your internet researches then join http://www.indiandoctorsforum.org/
You will find me there with same username (Dr Vaibhav Mehta).It will make you realize what is knowledge in the world?


Also to prove my all points I don't need to post even a link like you.I have posted them all either from the book of ''Anabolic Steroids and the Athlete By William N. Taylor'' or from Dr. Jensen's Guide to Body Chemistry & Nutrition by Bernard Jensen (Author), Bernard Jensen PhD (Author).

vaibhav mehta added 31 Minutes and 18 Seconds later...



Are you telling me about error value of 0.8 -1.0 ng per ml.?
And you are saying it should be more than 1.8?
What are you on about ha?


and this will prove that you have no concept about Anabolic steroids.

First of all, you are a doctor, and you should know this. Every doctor will have their own diagnosis, right? And sometimes people go to several doctors in the same field to get a proper diagnosis in order to get an accurate interpretation of their disease / problem, correct?

It would be almost impossible to be able to prove you wrong. Now I never said you were wrong, IIRC, however I found it surprising that the studies that I found on university websites (therefore not anyone could publish it) for research on Nandrolone for something else was contradicting what you were saying.

Let me give you an example.

The University of Bristol in the UK, Dr. Paul May wrote an article. Here's one interesting sentence:

However, what is detected in the drug tests is the metabolism product of this molecule, called 19-norandrosterone, which is excreted from the body in urine, making it easy to obtain samples. A limit of 2 ng per ml of urine (set by the International Olympic Committee) is the maximum concentration thought possible to occur in human body by 'natural means', and if this is exceeded the drug test is considered positive. Since some samples given by athletes have shown levels up to 100 times higher than this, the conclusion is that the athletes must have been taking extra quantities of the drug to enhance their performance.

So that would mean that if one was taking nandrolone purposely, it is likely he wouuld have levels of about 200 ng per mL

Now the LA Times wrote an article about Nandrolone in general, and here is a quote from Dr. Caitlin.

Studies performed by UCLA's Catlin and by researchers at the Cologne lab, then under the International Olympic Committee, showed in 2000 and 2002 that a wide range of nutritional supplements commonly taken by elite athletes were contaminated with nandrolone and other steroids.

Catlin's research, furthermore, made clear that it was not difficult for tests to distinguish a contamination victim from a cheater. His paper noted that an athlete taking nandrolone in a determined effort to cheat would show levels higher than 100,000 nanograms per milliliter, or parts per billion, of urine.

100,000 ng per mL. Hmm.

And the person in question only had 6.2.

Now you're excuse IIRC was that you get a different reading each time. However, I doubt that one reading will be 6.2 and the other 100,000

I assume copies of your books used are available online? Assuming so, I will look for them, or else find them at the library to confirm the numbers you have provided and the information given.

 

[metallics2006]

A limit of 2 ng per ml of urine (set by the International Olympic Committee) is the maximum concentration thought possible to occur in human body by 'natural means',

I am not an expert on this. But the lines say its maximum, not normal.

 

[Insomniac]

I am not an expert on this. But the lines say its maximum, not normal.

I'm not disputing what the IOC say. But he was talking about the error value being 0.8 - 1.0 mL when other sources say it could be possibly 100,000+...

 

[vaibhav mehta]

Let me give you an example.

The University of Bristol in the UK, Dr. Paul May wrote an article. Here's one interesting sentence:



So that would mean that if one was taking nandrolone purposely, it is likely he wouuld have levels of about 200 ng per mL

So the person can have the level about 200 ng per ml,yes,but it doesn't prove that 6.2 is not high,does it?

The article doesn't mean that Level should always be as high as 200 in person who administer Testosterone analogues!!It depends on thousand of other factors.

 

[Insomniac]

Read the other article as well.

It's saying 100,000 for anybody whose purposely trying to cheat.

Now I'm not a mathmetician, but only 6.2 out of 100,000?