No, she said, at least in the Russian version "i am staying to the end".
Unlike you who claimed that they used it without it having any therapeutic help, I don’t claim to know. I offered you alternative explanation that you can’t prove is not possible. So you shouldn’t be claiming that you know, when you in fact decided to believe to someone.
I have to say, the Olympics and the whole situation around it leaves me feeling very uncomfortable. I don’t think I will view Olympics the same way ever again. I used to believe in the whole idea that it is supposed to unite people from all over the world, but it is like if it has been soiled. Like if I lost my naive view and it is not possible to see it the same way ever again. I don’t want to sound melodramatic, but I wouldn’t mind if in the future olympics were gradually cancelled. Obviously they wouldn’t cancel the ones that are already being planned, but just don’t plan any further ones.
The CAS has overturned the lifetime ban for 11 Russian athletes banned by the Oswald Commission, but found the evidence of their doping infractions sufficient to uphold a ban from this Olympics. The IOC, and a number of national Olympic Committees have implemented rules to ban athletes with doping bans, but the CAS has routinely ruled against lifetime bans, which is why there are athletes who can compete at the Olympics who have had previous doping bans.
I can understand why you feel that why. The Olympics have been very good over the past 30 years of presenting a false image of what they really are. Keep in mind that the Olympics were created as a place for rich white frat boys and country clubbers to compete in an international sporting event. If you watch the movie 'Race', about the 1936 Olympics and the life of Jesse Owens, you'll get small introduction to Avery Brundage. Brundage was an American who headed up the IOC for many years, and the Olympics nearly didn't survive his leadership. The Olympic movement in the late 1970's and 80's faced a crossroads and needed to invite in commercialism and allow professional athletes in order to keep the movement alive.
Davka. Impoverished Greek boys and nerdy Jewish university students is more like it.
Davka.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L-7Vu7cqB20
Because it has no therapeutic help for those who haven't had a heart attack. The scientific evidence and studies state that rather clearly, as the scientific evidence also shows your alternative explanation isn't correct. Yes, off-label prescribing is a thing, but generally there is a reason a doctor will do it - usually at least a couple sound initial studies. This off-label use (prevention) has 0 studies supporting that use.
Alright, so the creator is lying and you know better, we get it. And all the Russians who believed that it has preventative benefits are either stupid idiots who believe all the lies of the creator, or they are cheats who were hoping to dope by over the counter medication. Did I get it right?
I was overstating things, but there is a history within the IOC of racism and economic discrimination.
Please give examples of, and explain if possible "economic discrimination" by IOC. I am not sure i understand or can think of examples.
During the presidency of Avery Brundage the IOC was very harsh on athletes who made money off their sport. So if your family had money and could support athletic career than it was fine - or your country paid for everything - than you could compete in the Olympics for as long as you wanted. But if you didn't have the economic resources and needed to earn money to continue you could be rule ineligible for the Olympics if any of the money earned could be linked to sport. So, for example, skiers working as ski instructors were banned from the Olympics.
Yes, I was speaking to the history of the IOC. The more recent history is quite a bit more positive when it comes to inclusion, for example IOC grants to athletes from less developed countries.
News flash: History began earlier than 1976.
He was president for 20 years and undoubtedly influenced other IOC members for many years.
I was pointing to an example of issues in the history of the IOC and picked the time period of the mid-1970's. I wasn't trying to give a full history of the IOC. If people are interested there's lots of information out there about there they can go and read.News flash: History began earlier than 1976.
I think this is a gross misuse, or perhaps "ulterior motive use" of the word "discrimination". Every one is yelling "discrimination" because its popular to claim "victim-hood"....
They set up a system that favoured athletes who could afford to pay their own expenses. If you don't like the word discrimination, than pick another, but considering this is not an issue now it's hardly about claiming 'victim-hood' as you call it.
A plain reading of the rules excluded state sponsorship of athletes but these rules weren't evenly enforced.
Athletes were not allowed to accept gifts or prizes that were valued about $50, and they weren't allowed to convert such items to cash.ISU/IOC did not have any rules stating "if you are poor (below certain income level) you can not participate". A poor person can find a rich sponsor, by the way...
The only ability I was talking about was the ability to pay.There are all sorts of circumstances that may hinder a person, biology, economics, location, etc.. I guess by your logic those who do not live in cities/towns with ice skating rinks are also discriminated against, because one needs ice to skate.. Come to think of it, i am being discriminated against in ice skating, my best jumps are doubles, and the ass-hat figure skating world moved on to triples and quads.. and i stand no chance..
