ADVERTISEMENT

Dabo and the PED issue.

Can you provide a link to that malarkey?

There is a doctor on with a message on twitter that made a video and posted that in one of the many threads on the issue. He claimed to know the amount of Ostarine identified in Dexter Lawrence's failed drug test and said that amount was too high of a concentration to come from a supplement and it was probably injected.

This poster may have a different source that what Injust wrote but all types of discussions are out there on this topic.
 
It is truly baffling that Dabo and his administration have given this drug to young student athletes. IF IF IF some how it was " by accident" as he claimed which came after the "shampoo theory" or whatever his next excuse is which is all only cause he got caught.
What type of "true investigation" are they doing internally to make sure no more of the players are given this harmful drug?
Anything???
 
It is truly baffling that Dabo and his administration have given this drug to young student athletes. IF IF IF some how it was " by accident" as he claimed which came after the "shampoo theory" or whatever his next excuse is which is all only cause he got caught.
What type of "true investigation" are they doing internally to make sure no more of the players are given this harmful drug?
Anything???

Taking this long to identify the source of their SARMs is mind boggling. How complicated is it to find truth in little ole Clemson, SC?
 
The headline might have been misleading. There are too many fanboys up there masquerading as journalists who will never ask Dabo anything they know he doesn't want to answer. KMac said he's been in the press box at clemson with reporters who have the paw painted on their faces. That's journalistic integrity!

1) Oh - it is misleading at the very least.

2) Oh there are DEFINITELY too many fanboys with press passes. Whoever gives out press passes would probably give a dog with a notepad hanging around his neck a press pass. Start some BS Facebook page with supposed "Clemson news" and you can get a press pass. It's ridiculous. There are good reporters on the Clemson beat though.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TheReelEss
All i know is NCAA president Mark Emmert sent me a letter today saying he is "acknowledging receipt of my letter about Clemson's PED failed tests".
 
  • Like
Reactions: Superior7
There is a doctor on with a message on twitter that made a video and posted that in one of the many threads on the issue. He claimed to know the amount of Ostarine identified in Dexter Lawrence's failed drug test and said that amount was too high of a concentration to come from a supplement and it was probably injected.

This poster may have a different source that what Injust wrote but all types of discussions are out there on this topic.
Sometimes I’m a doctor on message boards.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Tiger Artillery 12
So now it may be that weirdo Boulware ego provides the Ostarine ?
Even if so who made sure the players used it ?
Dabo already claiming his administration may have accidentally given it to their players
Seems many are at fault but Dabo it the leader
Punishment needs to be given out to many it seems
Or their cheating ways will not cease
 
I don't believe a word coming out of Dabo's mouth.[/QUOT

Me either ! If he speaks he lies
But hey he has many believing anything he says
No matter how many players he keeps for beating women , doing cocaine , grabbing other players inappropriately , getting police officers fired etc. it goes on and on
But hey he’s won ball games so it’s all they care about
The latest in the players being given Ostarine proves that
 
There is a doctor on with a message on twitter that made a video and posted that in one of the many threads on the issue. He claimed to know the amount of Ostarine identified in Dexter Lawrence's failed drug test and said that amount was too high of a concentration to come from a supplement and it was probably injected.

This poster may have a different source that what Injust wrote but all types of discussions are out there on this topic.

The article in Triathlete magazine that so many people are quoting stated that the level of ostarine has to be higher in a male to show up because it's similar to male hormones. Therefore, it's not a trivial amount.
 
The article in Triathlete magazine that so many people are quoting stated that the level of ostarine has to be higher in a male to show up because it's similar to male hormones. Therefore, it's not a trivial amount.
That's what I understood also. It's much easier to detect in females.
 
There is a doctor on with a message on twitter that made a video and posted that in one of the many threads on the issue. He claimed to know the amount of Ostarine identified in Dexter Lawrence's failed drug test and said that amount was too high of a concentration to come from a supplement and it was probably injected.

This poster may have a different source that what Injust wrote but all types of discussions are out there on this topic.
Pure garbage. You dont inject SARMs.
 
He may be the source but doubt he “ snuck “ it into those players systems
So no matter where it came from the coaching staff is ultimately the ones responsible
Dexter Lawrence said he has no clue
So someone has a clue
Dabo admitted they “ may have “ which translates to he knows they did it but he’s looking to put blame elsewhere
 
All i know is NCAA president Mark Emmert sent me a letter today saying he is "acknowledging receipt of my letter about Clemson's PED failed tests".
Pleased to hear this, but remember, the NCAA has a problem. The problem is that they need a team from the ACC to participate in the playoff series. At his point, Clemson is that team. We all know what has been going on with Clemson and that there has always been financial and other levels of support, and I am sure that the NCAA knows that as well, but in these times, money rules over integrity, so the answer is clear, leave Clemson alone.
 
  • Like
Reactions: jbouton
Pleased to hear this, but remember, the NCAA has a problem. The problem is that they need a team from the ACC to participate in the playoff series. At his point, Clemson is that team. We all know what has been going on with Clemson and that there has always been financial and other levels of support, and I am sure that the NCAA knows that as well, but in these times, money rules over integrity, so the answer is clear, leave Clemson alone.

Then that is beyond sad
Let a team continue to cheat but the conference is terrible so leave taters alone ?
Dang
 
Pleased to hear this, but remember, the NCAA has a problem. The problem is that they need a team from the ACC to participate in the playoff series. At his point, Clemson is that team. We all know what has been going on with Clemson and that there has always been financial and other levels of support, and I am sure that the NCAA knows that as well, but in these times, money rules over integrity, so the answer is clear, leave Clemson alone.
It ain't over yet and Mark Emmert will get a 4th letter from me with Butthole Ben being the main topic in this one.
 
Sorry....not a liberal arts major. Nothing wrong with them, but I'm not one.

Bradley Culp got a BA in journalism from Miami (OH). I read his editorial also, and the only part of that argument that was correct is that female triathletes are smaller than male and would show a higher concentration from the same dose.
 
Damn - someone ACTUALLY read the article and not just the bullshit headline! Nice.



Spankoff (I'm stealing that BTW) is a bad joke of a reporter and he's just trying to be relevant. I keep hearing Grace Raynor was a good Clemson beat reporter but I'm yet to see anything to substantiate that.

The Kill the messenger philosiphy....Clemson is the best at it.

Sapakoff or Raynor have not written anything that is not true. The line they selcted for the headline of the article the national news media picked up was spoken by Dabo. Also, Radikovich said in an interview with Phil Kormblut that Clemson was testing supplements they give team.

Clemson is a small place and the football team is an even smaller part of the population. This source should be simple to identify but Clemson is sandbagging and appears to be hiding facts to prevent truth from ever surfacing.

This problem could be in more sports at Clemson than football and the AD should widen his scope since the Ben Bouleware rumor is circulating.
 
The article in Triathlete magazine that so many people are quoting stated that the level of ostarine has to be higher in a male to show up because it's similar to male hormones. Therefore, it's not a trivial amount.

It’s an editorial with no references or sources. Quoting that is like quoting an anonymous blog.
 
  • Like
Reactions: legalsizecock
Its around 24-36 hours which means in a few days you should be clean.
It appears you don't have a problem calling out our fans when they are wrong, so turnabout is fair play. Your statement above concerning the half life of Ostarine is WRONG! That might be what is written on the label, but there will be traces of Ostarine found long after that time frame has expired.

A medication's biological half-life refers simply to how long it takes for half of the dose to be metabolized and eliminated from the bloodstream. Or, put another way, the half-life of a drug is the time it takes for it to be reduced by half. It simply reduces by half per time cycle.

The goal of any medication/drug/supplement is to get it to a "steady state"—in other words, to the point at which the amount that goes into the body is equal to the amount that's eliminated. And, in most cases, it has to be taken over a period of time to achieve the desired effect or impact.

Interestingly, no matter what the half-life of a medication is, it takes about four times that amount of time for the concentration of the drug to reach a steady state in the body. This means that if you begin taking a medication with a half-life of 24 hours, after four days, or on the fifth day, the rate of intake of the drug will approximately equal the rate of elimination. If the half-life is 12 hours, you'll reach steady state at the beginning of the third day (after 48 hours).

More importantly the expected half-life of a drug will vary from person to person, depending on factors such as age, weight, genetics, and even specific health issues, or the organ in which the drug is processed.

Drugs with a longer half-life take longer to work, but on the positive side, they take less time to leave your bloodstream. On the flip side, those with a short half-life become effective more quickly but are harder to come off of. In fact, drugs with very short half-lives can lead to dependency if taken over a long period of time.

A drug's half-life is an important factor when it's time to stop taking it. Both the strength and duration of the medication will be considered, as will its half-life. This is important because you risk unpleasant withdrawal symptoms if you quit cold turkey.

All of these factors explain why 'slivers' of Ostarine were found in the test of 3 Clemson football players that was probably administered several days, if not weeks, after ingestion.
 
Drugs with a longer half-life take longer to work, but on the positive side, they take less time to leave your bloodstream. On the flip side, those with a short half-life become effective more quickly but are harder to come off of. In fact, drugs with very short half-lives can lead to dependency if taken over a long period of time.

A drug's half-life is an important factor when it's time to stop taking it. Both the strength and duration of the medication will be considered, as will its half-life. This is important because you risk unpleasant withdrawal symptoms if you quit cold turkey.

All of these factors explain why 'slivers' of Ostarine were found in the test of 3 Clemson football players that was probably administered several days, if not weeks, after ingestion.

The metabolic or elimination half life of a drug and how long it takes to act are completely unrelated.
 
The metabolic or elimination half life of a drug and how long it takes to act are completely unrelated.
WOW! Now, not only are you a legal expert, you are also an expert in pharmacology. Of course we should have been able to guess as much by your handle, isn't that right 'Doctor' Obnoxious?! Your parent must be extremely proud of your various online degrees. Probably had to take down the velvet painting of Elvis in the living room of your double-wide just to have a prominent spot in which to display them all.
 
  • Like
Reactions: rogue cock
WOW! Now, not only are you a legal expert, you are also an expert in pharmacology. Of course we should have been able to guess as much by your handle, isn't that right 'Doctor' Obnoxious?! Your parent must be extremely proud of your various online degrees. Probably had to take down the velvet painting of Elvis in the living room of your double-wide just to have a prominent spot in which to display them all.
You say pharmacokinetics, I say pharmacodynamics.
 
WOW! Now, not only are you a legal expert, you are also an expert in pharmacology. Of course we should have been able to guess as much by your handle, isn't that right 'Doctor' Obnoxious?! Your parent must be extremely proud of your various online degrees. Probably had to take down the velvet painting of Elvis in the living room of your double-wide just to have a prominent spot in which to display them all.

What made you think the metabolic half-life had anything to do with how long it takes a drug to act? Or did you just copy and paste from a dubious source?
 
What made you think the metabolic half-life had anything to do with how long it takes a drug to act? Or did you just copy and paste from a dubious source?
Please show me where I mentioned 'metabolic half-life' anywhere in my post? I'm not going to start playing 'word games' with you like you did with similar posters in this thread.
 
Please show me where I mentioned 'metabolic half-life' anywhere in my post? I'm not going to start playing 'word games' with you like you did with similar posters in this thread.

It was your really long post with the pseudo-scientific explanations, and mistakes like:

"Drugs with a longer half-life take longer to work, but on the positive side, they take less time to leave your bloodstream."

The "longer to work" part is just plain false, and I didn't even notice the rest of the sentence till now. A long half-life means a longer time to leave your system, not a shorter time.

It's early in the evening to be so drunk.
 
It was your really long post with the pseudo-scientific explanations, and mistakes like:

"Drugs with a longer half-life take longer to work, but on the positive side, they take less time to leave your bloodstream."

The "longer to work" part is just plain false, and I didn't even notice the rest of the sentence till now. A long half-life means a longer time to leave your system, not a shorter time.

It's early in the evening to be so drunk.
Absolutely NOTHING false in my response. Not all drugs work at the same rate and if you had bothered to read a little further, you would have come across the part regarding achieving a 'steady state'.

The half-life of a given medication is how long it takes for the body to get rid of half of the dose. When the patient is taking a medication on a regular basis, there is an ongoing process of drug absorption in the form of each dose of the drug and, concurrently, an ongoing process of drug removal with the drug's metabolism and clearance. Eventually, there comes a point when the amount of drug going in is the same as the amount of drug getting taken out. We call this "steady state." It takes somewhere between 5 and 6 half-lives for a medication to reach steady state. Thus, medications with short half-lives reach steady state relatively quickly, while those with long half-lives take a long time to reach steady state.

But, the amount of time it takes a drug to work and for a patient to reach the 'steady state' is not equal to the amount of time it takes for the drug to leave your system. Understand?
 
Absolutely NOTHING false in my response. Not all drugs work at the same rate and if you had bothered to read a little further, you would have come across the part regarding achieving a 'steady state'.

The half-life of a given medication is how long it takes for the body to get rid of half of the dose. When the patient is taking a medication on a regular basis, there is an ongoing process of drug absorption in the form of each dose of the drug and, concurrently, an ongoing process of drug removal with the drug's metabolism and clearance. Eventually, there comes a point when the amount of drug going in is the same as the amount of drug getting taken out. We call this "steady state." It takes somewhere between 5 and 6 half-lives for a medication to reach steady state. Thus, medications with short half-lives reach steady state relatively quickly, while those with long half-lives take a long time to reach steady state.

But, the amount of time it takes a drug to work and for a patient to reach the 'steady state' is not equal to the amount of time it takes for the drug to leave your system. Understand?

I was only referring to the specifically false portion that I quoted. The steady-state part is OK and repeating it here for effect is meh, but it doesn't make the false parts true.

In retrospect, “steady state” is improper in this context. That implies a constant concentration with time. But with every new dose, there is something like a filtered unit step in concentration, that then decays. “Stationary” is probably a better description, but that’s not exactly right either because of the ergodic implication.
 
Last edited:
Lol. Came here to still see the same posters giving it all they can to defend Dabo for “ accidentally “ giving kids Ostarine or using excuse of it’s in shampoo
Good grief
 
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT