Comments by "D W" (@DW-op7ly) on "South China Morning Post"
channel.
-
Chinese swimming scandal: a strong defence by world anti-doping body, but narrative of ‘cover-up’ remains
Published: April 24, 2024
Given an investigation by the Chinese Ministry of Public Security found traces of the banned substance trimetazidine (TMZ) in a kitchen at the swimmers’ hotel, CHINADA ruled the positive tests were the result of accidental contamination. The Chinese swimmers were cleared without any public announcement.
WADA says China’s national anti-doping agency kept them abreast of events throughout their extensive investigation, which took place during strict COVID lockdowns and was impacted by a local outbreak of the virus.
Far from accepting CHINADA’s findings on the face of it, WADA requested the entire case file so it could conduct its own scientific and legal investigations – including speaking with the drug manufacturer to get the latest unpublished science on TMZ, and comparing the Chinese positive tests with TMZ cases in other countries, including the US. WADA ultimately determined there was no concrete evidence to “disprove” the possibility of environmental contamination.
Here are a few reasons WADA gave as to why in its press conference this week:
More than 200 swimmers competing in the Chinese National Championships were staying in at least two different hotels at the time. The swimmers who tested positive to non-performance-enhancing amounts of TMZ were all at one hotel.
There were fluctuating negative and positive results for the swimmers that were tested on multiple occasions, which were not consistent with deliberate doping techniques, including microdosing.
WADA found no evidence of misconduct or manipulation in the case file handed over by CHINADA.
WADA says it reviews between 2,000 and 3,000 cases of suspected doping every year. It is not unusual for the body to file an appeal challenging anti-doping findings.
For example, WADA challenged an Australian Football League decision to clear 34 members of the Essendon Football Club. It also appealed a decision by the world swimming body, FINA, to clear high-profile Chinese swimmer Sun Yang of wrongdoing for his conduct during a 2018 drug test.
According to WADA’s general counsel, Ross Wenzel, the difference between these cases and the more recent allegations against the Chinese swimmers was that the body accepted the “no fault” finding in the latter case. In the earlier cases, it did not.
He also said WADA received external legal advice that it would have had less than a 1% chance of winning an appeal in the TMZ case. According to WADA, everything was handled by the book, and if the body was faced with the same situation again, it would do nothing differently.
Has China been unfairly singled out?
So, has WADA succeeded in changing the narrative? Probably not.
Why? Because putting the words “China” and “doping” together is a lightning rod in the current political climate given the intense rivalry between China and the US.
Currently there are 23 people serving anti-doping suspensions in Australia. Do we feel personal or national shame for their wrongdoing?
Every time the US team marches into an Olympic Games, or steps up onto a World Championships medal podium, do we point at them while recalling memories of the US Postal Service cycling team and the banned-for-life cyclist Lance Armstrong?
But when it comes to China, many observers are quick to name and shame athletes, viewing every news story as some kind of proof the country must have a systemic, state-sanctioned doping program.
The Conversation
👇
Sports Med Open. 2024 Dec; 10: 57. Published online 2024 May 20. doi: 10.1186/s40798-024-00721-9
PMCID: PMC11102888PMID: 38763945
Doping Prevalence among U.S. Elite Athletes Subject to Drug Testing under the World Anti-Doping Code
Depending on the method of calculation, 6.5–9.2% of the 1,398 respondents reported using one or more prohibited substances or methods in the 12 months prior to survey administration. Specific doping prevalence rates for each individual substance / method categories ranged from 0.1% (for both diuretics / masking agents and stem cell / gene editing) to 4.2% for in-competition use of cannabinoids.
NIH
👇
Lewis: ‘Who cares I failed drug test?’
Duncan Mackay
Thu 24 Apr 2003 01.51 BST
Carl Lewis has broken his silence on allegations that he was the beneficiary of a drugs cover-up, admitting he had tested positive for banned substances but claiming he was just one of "hundreds" of American athletes who were allowed to escape bans.
"There were hundreds of people getting off," he said. "Everyone was treated the same."
Lewis has now acknowledged that he failed three tests during the 1988 US Olympic trials, which under international rules at the time should have prevented him from competing in the Seoul games two months later.
Carl Lewis has broken his silence on allegations that he was the beneficiary of a drugs cover-up, admitting he had tested positive for banned substances but claiming he was just one of "hundreds" of American athletes who were allowed to escape bans.
"There were hundreds of people getting off," he said. "Everyone was treated the same."
Lewis has now acknowledged that he failed three tests during the 1988 US Olympic trials, which under international rules at the time should have prevented him from competing in the Seoul games two months later.
THEGUARDIAN
1
-
@SumTingWong888
Viet cong where did you hear it was hamburger meat?
That was the Americans sprinters excuse and we believe it
👇
Chinese swimming scandal: a strong defence by world anti-doping body, but narrative of ‘cover-up’ remains
Published: April 24, 2024
Given an investigation by the Chinese Ministry of Public Security found traces of the banned substance trimetazidine (TMZ) in a kitchen at the swimmers’ hotel, CHINADA ruled the positive tests were the result of accidental contamination. The Chinese swimmers were cleared without any public announcement.
WADA says China’s national anti-doping agency kept them abreast of events throughout their extensive investigation, which took place during strict COVID lockdowns and was impacted by a local outbreak of the virus.
Far from accepting CHINADA’s findings on the face of it, WADA requested the entire case file so it could conduct its own scientific and legal investigations – including speaking with the drug manufacturer to get the latest unpublished science on TMZ, and comparing the Chinese positive tests with TMZ cases in other countries, including the US. WADA ultimately determined there was no concrete evidence to “disprove” the possibility of environmental contamination.
Here are a few reasons WADA gave as to why in its press conference this week:
More than 200 swimmers competing in the Chinese National Championships were staying in at least two different hotels at the time. The swimmers who tested positive to non-performance-enhancing amounts of TMZ were all at one hotel.
There were fluctuating negative and positive results for the swimmers that were tested on multiple occasions, which were not consistent with deliberate doping techniques, including microdosing.
WADA found no evidence of misconduct or manipulation in the case file handed over by CHINADA.
WADA says it reviews between 2,000 and 3,000 cases of suspected doping every year. It is not unusual for the body to file an appeal challenging anti-doping findings.
For example, WADA challenged an Australian Football League decision to clear 34 members of the Essendon Football Club. It also appealed a decision by the world swimming body, FINA, to clear high-profile Chinese swimmer Sun Yang of wrongdoing for his conduct during a 2018 drug test.
According to WADA’s general counsel, Ross Wenzel, the difference between these cases and the more recent allegations against the Chinese swimmers was that the body accepted the “no fault” finding in the latter case. In the earlier cases, it did not.
He also said WADA received external legal advice that it would have had less than a 1% chance of winning an appeal in the TMZ case. According to WADA, everything was handled by the book, and if the body was faced with the same situation again, it would do nothing differently.
Has China been unfairly singled out?
So, has WADA succeeded in changing the narrative? Probably not.
Why? Because putting the words “China” and “doping” together is a lightning rod in the current political climate given the intense rivalry between China and the US.
Currently there are 23 people serving anti-doping suspensions in Australia. Do we feel personal or national shame for their wrongdoing?
Every time the US team marches into an Olympic Games, or steps up onto a World Championships medal podium, do we point at them while recalling memories of the US Postal Service cycling team and the banned-for-life cyclist Lance Armstrong?
But when it comes to China, many observers are quick to name and shame athletes, viewing every news story as some kind of proof the country must have a systemic, state-sanctioned doping program.
The Conversation
👇
Sports Med Open. 2024 Dec; 10: 57. Published online 2024 May 20. doi: 10.1186/s40798-024-00721-9
PMCID: PMC11102888PMID: 38763945
Doping Prevalence among U.S. Elite Athletes Subject to Drug Testing under the World Anti-Doping Code
Depending on the method of calculation, 6.5–9.2% of the 1,398 respondents reported using one or more prohibited substances or methods in the 12 months prior to survey administration. Specific doping prevalence rates for each individual substance / method categories ranged from 0.1% (for both diuretics / masking agents and stem cell / gene editing) to 4.2% for in-competition use of cannabinoids.
NIH
👇
Lewis: ‘Who cares I failed drug test?’
Duncan Mackay
Thu 24 Apr 2003 01.51 BST
Carl Lewis has broken his silence on allegations that he was the beneficiary of a drugs cover-up, admitting he had tested positive for banned substances but claiming he was just one of "hundreds" of American athletes who were allowed to escape bans.
"There were hundreds of people getting off," he said. "Everyone was treated the same."
Lewis has now acknowledged that he failed three tests during the 1988 US Olympic trials, which under international rules at the time should have prevented him from competing in the Seoul games two months later.
Carl Lewis has broken his silence on allegations that he was the beneficiary of a drugs cover-up, admitting he had tested positive for banned substances but claiming he was just one of "hundreds" of American athletes who were allowed to escape bans.
"There were hundreds of people getting off," he said. "Everyone was treated the same."
Lewis has now acknowledged that he failed three tests during the 1988 US Olympic trials, which under international rules at the time should have prevented him from competing in the Seoul games two months later.
THEGUARDIAN
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
serriajohn
How Much Money Does the World Owe China?
Our research, based on a comprehensive new data set, shows that China has extended many more loans to developing countries than previously known. This systematic underreporting of Chinese loans has created a “hidden debt” problem – meaning that debtor countries and international institutions alike have an incomplete picture on how much countries around the world owe to China and under which conditions.
In total, the Chinese state and its subsidiaries have lent about $1.5 trillion in direct loans and trade credits to more than 150 countries around the globe. This has turned China into the world’s largest official creditor — surpassing traditional, official lenders such as the World Bank, the IMF, or all OECD creditor governments combined.
Despite the large size of China’s overseas lending boom, no official data exists on the resulting debt flows and stocks. China does not report on its international lending, and Chinese loans literally fall through the cracks of traditional data-gathering institutions. For example, credit rating agencies, such as Moody’s or Standard & Poor’s, or data providers, such as Bloomberg, focus on private creditors, but China’s lending is state sponsored, and therefore off their radar screen. Debtor countries themselves often do not collect data on debt owed by state-owned companies, which are the main recipients of Chinese loans. In addition, China is not a member of the Paris Club (an informal group of creditor nations) or the OECD, both of which collect data on lending by official creditors.
HarvardBusinessReview
👇
What is the volume of Chinese loans in Africa?
The Chinese press agency Xinhua gives lower figures on the extent of Chinese loans: “A report published last July by the British NGO Debt Justice showed that 12 percent of the external debt of African countries is owed to Chinese lenders, compared to 35 percent to Western private lenders. The average interest rate of these private loans is 5 percent, compared with 2.7 percent for loans from Chinese public and private lenders.” Source: Xinhua, Key Facts U.S. Deliberately Ignores about African Debt, 7/02/2023.
Cadmium
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Btw same can be said about your Filipino claims to Sabah which is a historical claim
Vs their obvious proximity claim
Like I said you Filipinos are the ones who initiated that 2016 ICJ tribunal dismissing historical claim over your proximity claim
As you bully Malaysia over a historical claim
👇
The two main sultanates in the region at the time were Sulu and Brunei. In 1658, the Sultan of Brunei gave Sabah to the Sultan of Sulu - either as a dowry or because troops from Sulu had helped him quell a rebellion.
More than 350 years later, the sultan's heirs have come to remind Malaysians that they still consider Sabah to be part of Sulu and, by extension, part of the Philippines.
"Sabah is our home," they said simply when asked why they had come.
But history is not that simple and of course Malaysia has no intention of giving up Sabah to this little band of Filipinos.
The crux of their disagreement lies in a contract made in 1878, between the Sultanate of Sulu and the British North Borneo Company.
Under this contract known as pajak, the company could occupy Sabah in perpetuity as long as it paid a regular sum of money.
Even today, Malaysia pays about 5,000 Malaysian ringgit (£1,000, $1,500) a year to the Sultanate of Sulu.
But the British and, after that an independent Malaysia, interpreted pajak to mean sale, while the Sulu Sultanate has always maintained it means lease.
"In my opinion, this is more consistent with a lease rather than a sale, because you can't have a purchase price which is not fixed and which is payable until kingdom come," said Harry Roque, a law professor at the University of the Philippines.
BBC
1
-
Philippines under UNCLOS had every right to request a tribunal as a resolution
But
China under UNCLOS had every right not to accept the tribunal as a resolution
No one other than Taiwan accepts that 9 dash line claim. Which the tribunal did rule against
The tribunal did not rule on ownership of the disputed islands or waters
But what the tribunal did state was ... No one exhibited continuous control over the islands, reefs, water in dispute
That means all the other countries who also have their land and water disputes including China and the Philippines
Have dug into the land and water they control. And are basically saying talk to us in few hundred years
👇
Article 287
Choice of procedure
1. When signing, ratifying or acceding to this Convention or at any time thereafter, a State shall be free to choose, by means of a written declaration, one or more of the following means for the settlement of disputes concerning the interpretation or application of this Convention:
(a) the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea established in accordance with Annex VI;
(b) the International Court of Justice;
(c) an arbitral tribunal constituted in accordance with Annex VII;
(d) a special arbitral tribunal constituted in accordance with Annex VIII for one or more of the categories of disputes specified therein.
2. A declaration made under paragraph 1 shall not affect or be affected by the obligation of a State Party to accept the jurisdiction of the Seabed Disputes Chamber of the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea to the extent and in the manner provided for in Part XI, section 5.
3. A State Party, which is a party to a dispute not covered by a declaration in force, shall be deemed to have accepted arbitration in accordance with Annex VII.
4. If the parties to a dispute have accepted the same procedure for the settlement of the dispute, it may be submitted only to that procedure, unless the parties otherwise agree.
5. If the parties to a dispute have not accepted the same procedure for the settlement of the dispute, it may be submitted only to arbitration in accordance with Annex VII, unless the parties otherwise agree.
6. A declaration made under paragraph 1 shall remain in force until three months after notice of revocation has been deposited with the Secretary-General of the United Nations.
7. A new declaration, a notice of revocation or the expiry of a declaration does not in any way affect proceedings pending before a court or tribunal having jurisdiction under this article, unless the parties otherwise agree.
8. Declarations and notices referred to in this article shall be deposited with the Secretary-General of the United Nations, who shall transmit copies thereof to the States Parties.
UNORG
👇
Article 287, paragraph 1, provides that States and entities, when signing, ratifying or acceding to the Convention, or at any time thereafter, may make declarations specifying the forums for the settlement of disputes which they accept. Article 287, paragraph 1, reads: "Article 287
UNORG
👇
Article 298
Optional exceptions to applicability of section 2
1. When signing, ratifying or acceding to this Convention or at any time thereafter, a State may, without prejudice to the obligations arising under section 1, declare in writing that it does not accept any one or more of the procedures provided for in section 2 with respect to one or more of the following categories of disputes:
(a) (i) disputes concerning the interpretation or application of articles 15, 74 and 83 relating to sea boundary delimitations, or those involving historic bays or titles, provided that a State having made such a declaration shall, when such a dispute arises subsequent to the entry into force of this Convention and where no agreement within a reasonable period of time is reached in negotiations between the parties, at the request of any party to the dispute, accept submission of the matter to conciliation under Annex V, section 2; and provided further that any dispute that necessarily involves the concurrent consideration of any unsettled dispute concerning sovereignty or other rights over continental or insular land territory shall be excluded from such submission;
(ii) after the conciliation commission has presented its report, which shall state the reasons on which it is based, the parties shall negotiate an agreement on the basis of that report; if these negotiations do not result in an agreement, the parties shall, by mutual consent, submit the question to one of the procedures provided for in section 2, unless the parties otherwise agree;
(iii) this subparagraph does not apply to any sea boundary dispute finally settled by an arrangement between the parties, or to any such dispute which is to be settled in accordance with a bilateral or multilateral agreement binding upon those parties;
(b) disputes concerning military activities, including military activities by government vessels and aircraft engaged in non-commercial service, and disputes concerning law enforcement activities in regard to the exercise of sovereign rights or jurisdiction excluded from the jurisdiction of a court or tribunal under article 297, paragraph 2 or 3;
(c) disputes in respect of which the Security Council of the United Nations is exercising the functions assigned to it by the Charter of the United Nations, unless the Security Council decides to remove the matter from its agenda or calls upon the parties to settle it by the means provided for in this Convention.
2. A State Party which has made a declaration under paragraph 1 may at any time withdraw it, or agree to submit a dispute excluded by such declaration to any procedure specified in this Convention.
3. A State Party which has made a declaration under paragraph 1 shall not be entitled to submit any dispute falling within the excepted category of disputes to any procedure in this Convention as against another State Party, without the consent of that party.
4. If one of the States Parties has made a declaration under paragraph 1(a), any other State Party may submit any dispute falling within an excepted category against the declarant party to the procedure specified in such declaration.
5. A new declaration, or the withdrawal of a declaration, does not in any way affect proceedings pending before a court or tribunal in accordance with this article, unless the parties otherwise agree.
6. Declarations and notices of withdrawal of declarations under this article shall be deposited with the Secretary-General of the United Nations, who shall transmit copies thereof to the States Parties.
UNORG
👇
The Government of the People’s Republic of China does not accept any of the procedures provided for in Section 2 of Part XV of the Convention with respect to all the categories of disputes referred to in paragraph 1 (a) (b) and (c) of Article 298 of the Convention.
UNORG
👇
In addition, article 298, paragraph 1, allows States and entities to declare that they exclude the application of the compulsory binding procedures for the settlement of disputes under the Convention in respect of certain specified categories kinds of disputes. Article 298, paragraph 1, reads:
UNORG
👇
Article 299 Right of the parties to agree upon a procedure
1. A dispute excluded under article 297 or excepted by a declaration made under article 298 from the dispute settlement procedures provided for in section 2 may be submitted to such procedures only by agreement of the parties to the dispute.
2. Nothing in this section impairs the right of the parties to the dispute to agree to some other procedure for the settlement of such dispute or to reach an amicable settlement.
UNORG
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Filipinos crying bullying when they are making a historical claim on Malaysian land in Sabah as a prize for participation in quelling a rebellion for a former Malay Sultan
Bullying the Malaysians as Filipinos in 2013 invaded Sabah causing the demise of 71 people.
Where Malaysia clearly wins the proximity claim as Sabah is attached to Malaysia and the sea separates the Philippines (In fact there are a few islands controlled by the Philippines that are closer to Malaysia than the Philippines off the shores of Malaysian land) if we are arguing proximity
Why is the proximity debate important
Because the Philippines dispute in the SCS with China stems from the fact they made a formal proximity claim against China in the 1970s on those disputed islands and waters
Where China makes a 200 ce historical claim that the Philippines formally dismissed in the 2016 ICJ tribunal that the Filipinos unilaterally brought forth
👇
Timeline of the South China Sea dispute
* It has been claimed by the People's Republic of China on the argument that since 200 BCE Chinese fishermen have used the Spratly islands
* Naval forces of the Liu Song dynasty (420–479 CE) patrolled the Paracel and Spratly islands.[5] In the Tang dynasty (618–907 CE), the islands were placed under the administration and authority of the Qiongzhou Prefecture (now Hainan Province).[5] The Chinese administration of the South China Sea continued into the Song dynasty (960–1279 CE).[5]
* Archaeologists have found Chinese made potteries porcelains and other historical relics from the Southern dynasties (420–589 CE), the Sui dynasty (581–619 CE), the Tang dynasty, the Song dynasty, the Yuan dynasty (1271–1368 CE), the Ming dynasty (1368–1644 CE) and later eras up to modern times on the South China Sea islands.[5]
1876 – China makes its earliest documented claim to the Paracel Islands[citation needed]
1883 – When the Spratlys and Paracels were surveyed by Germany in 1883, China issued protests.
1887 – In the 19th century, Europeans found that Chinese fishermen from Hainan annually visited the Spratly islands for part of the year, while in 1877 it was the British who launched the first modern legal claims to the Spratlys
1902 – China sends naval forces on inspection tours of the Paracel Islands to preempt French claims.[28] Scholar François-Xavier Bonnet argued that per Chinese records, these expeditions never occurred and were backdated during the 1970s.[29][30]
1907 – China sends another naval force, this time to plan for resource exploitation.[28]
1911 – The newly formed Republic of China, successor state to the Qing dynasty, moves administration of the Paracel Islands to Hainan,[28] which would not become a separate Chinese province until 1988.
1946 – The R.O.C. established garrisons on both Woody (now Yongxing / 永兴) Island in the Paracels and Taiping Island in the Spratlys. France protested. The French tried but failed to dislodge Chinese nationalist troops from Yongxing Island/Woody Island (the only habitable island in the Paracels), but were able to establish a small camp on Pattle (now Shanhu / 珊瑚) Island in the southwestern part of the archipelago.[37][38][39] The Republic of China drew up The Southern China Sea Islands Location Map, marking the national boundaries in the sea with 11 lines, two of which were later removed, showing the U-shaped claim on the entire South China Sea, and showing the Spratly and Paracels in Chinese territory, in 1947.[28] The Americans reminded the Philippines at its independence in 1946 that the Spratlys was not Philippine territory, both to not anger Chiang Kai-shek in China and because the Spratlys were not part of the Philippines per the 1898 treaty Spain signed with America.[38]
1950 – After the Chinese nationalists were driven from Hainan by the People's Liberation Army (PLA), they withdrew their garrisons in both the Paracels and Spratlys to Taiwan.
1969 – A UN sponsored research team discovers oil under the sea floor of the island group.
1970 – China occupies Amphitrite Group of the Paracel Islands
* In 1596, the Spanish Colonial Government declared that each island in the Kalayaan Islands, now known as the Spratly Islands, had Barangay or Barrio status.
1971 – Philippines announces claim to islands adjacent to its territory in the Spratlys, which they named Kalayaan, which was formally incorporated into Palawan Province in 1972. The Philippines President Marcos announced the claims after Taiwanese troops attacked and shot at a Philippine fishing boat on Itu Aba.[
Wikipedia
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Chinese swimming scandal: a strong defence by world anti-doping body, but narrative of ‘cover-up’ remains
Published: April 24, 2024
Given an investigation by the Chinese Ministry of Public Security found traces of the banned substance trimetazidine (TMZ) in a kitchen at the swimmers’ hotel, CHINADA ruled the positive tests were the result of accidental contamination. The Chinese swimmers were cleared without any public announcement.
WADA says China’s national anti-doping agency kept them abreast of events throughout their extensive investigation, which took place during strict COVID lockdowns and was impacted by a local outbreak of the virus.
Far from accepting CHINADA’s findings on the face of it, WADA requested the entire case file so it could conduct its own scientific and legal investigations – including speaking with the drug manufacturer to get the latest unpublished science on TMZ, and comparing the Chinese positive tests with TMZ cases in other countries, including the US. WADA ultimately determined there was no concrete evidence to “disprove” the possibility of environmental contamination.
Here are a few reasons WADA gave as to why in its press conference this week:
More than 200 swimmers competing in the Chinese National Championships were staying in at least two different hotels at the time. The swimmers who tested positive to non-performance-enhancing amounts of TMZ were all at one hotel.
There were fluctuating negative and positive results for the swimmers that were tested on multiple occasions, which were not consistent with deliberate doping techniques, including microdosing.
WADA found no evidence of misconduct or manipulation in the case file handed over by CHINADA.
WADA says it reviews between 2,000 and 3,000 cases of suspected doping every year. It is not unusual for the body to file an appeal challenging anti-doping findings.
For example, WADA challenged an Australian Football League decision to clear 34 members of the Essendon Football Club. It also appealed a decision by the world swimming body, FINA, to clear high-profile Chinese swimmer Sun Yang of wrongdoing for his conduct during a 2018 drug test.
According to WADA’s general counsel, Ross Wenzel, the difference between these cases and the more recent allegations against the Chinese swimmers was that the body accepted the “no fault” finding in the latter case. In the earlier cases, it did not.
He also said WADA received external legal advice that it would have had less than a 1% chance of winning an appeal in the TMZ case. According to WADA, everything was handled by the book, and if the body was faced with the same situation again, it would do nothing differently.
Has China been unfairly singled out?
So, has WADA succeeded in changing the narrative? Probably not.
Why? Because putting the words “China” and “doping” together is a lightning rod in the current political climate given the intense rivalry between China and the US.
Currently there are 23 people serving anti-doping suspensions in Australia. Do we feel personal or national shame for their wrongdoing?
Every time the US team marches into an Olympic Games, or steps up onto a World Championships medal podium, do we point at them while recalling memories of the US Postal Service cycling team and the banned-for-life cyclist Lance Armstrong?
But when it comes to China, many observers are quick to name and shame athletes, viewing every news story as some kind of proof the country must have a systemic, state-sanctioned doping program.
The Conversation
👇
Sports Med Open. 2024 Dec; 10: 57. Published online 2024 May 20. doi: 10.1186/s40798-024-00721-9
PMCID: PMC11102888PMID: 38763945
Doping Prevalence among U.S. Elite Athletes Subject to Drug Testing under the World Anti-Doping Code
Depending on the method of calculation, 6.5–9.2% of the 1,398 respondents reported using one or more prohibited substances or methods in the 12 months prior to survey administration. Specific doping prevalence rates for each individual substance / method categories ranged from 0.1% (for both diuretics / masking agents and stem cell / gene editing) to 4.2% for in-competition use of cannabinoids.
NIH
👇
Lewis: ‘Who cares I failed drug test?’
Duncan Mackay
Thu 24 Apr 2003 01.51 BST
Carl Lewis has broken his silence on allegations that he was the beneficiary of a drugs cover-up, admitting he had tested positive for banned substances but claiming he was just one of "hundreds" of American athletes who were allowed to escape bans.
"There were hundreds of people getting off," he said. "Everyone was treated the same."
Lewis has now acknowledged that he failed three tests during the 1988 US Olympic trials, which under international rules at the time should have prevented him from competing in the Seoul games two months later.
Carl Lewis has broken his silence on allegations that he was the beneficiary of a drugs cover-up, admitting he had tested positive for banned substances but claiming he was just one of "hundreds" of American athletes who were allowed to escape bans.
"There were hundreds of people getting off," he said. "Everyone was treated the same."
Lewis has now acknowledged that he failed three tests during the 1988 US Olympic trials, which under international rules at the time should have prevented him from competing in the Seoul games two months later.
THEGUARDIAN
1
-
1
-
Chinese just saved Tesla again
Apparently Musk went to China to get that Chinese FSD data stored there by Tesla since 2021
The Chinese probably said no we can’t allow that Chinese data to go to the USA so you can type up some algorithms
But we will allow you to team up with Baidu who are already way ahead of you anyways
This will help you compete in China vs Chinese EV makers
👇
Baidu starts offering nighttime driverless taxis
December 26, 2022
Starting this week, the public can ride its robotaxis in Wuhan between 7 am and 11 pm without safety drivers behind the wheel.
Previously, its unmanned vehicles could only operate from 9 am to 5 pm in the city.
The updated scheme is expected to cover one million customers in certain areas of Wuhan, a city of more than 10 million people.
Like most autonomous vehicle startups, Baidu combines a mix of third-party cameras, radar and lidar to help its cars see better in low-visibility conditions, in contrast to Tesla’s vision-based solution.
In August, Baidu started offering fully driverless robotaxi rides, charging passengers at taxi rates.
In Q3, Apollo Go, the firm’s robotaxi hailing app, completed more than 474,000 rides, up 311% year over year.
Accumulatively, Apollo Go had exceeded 1.4 million orders as of Q3.
TC
1
-
1
-
@velelimaka9040
America and it’s NATO lackeys
both Russia and Ukraine receive dual use exported goods from China
we know this because the Ukrainians started to use Chinese made retail toy store drones over US made military grade drones
😂😂😂
👇
Ukraine and Israel buying Chinese civilian drones for combat use; shun U.S military drones
Kevin Walmsley
YouTube
👇
How American Drones Failed to Turn the Tide in Ukraine
Drones from American startups have been deemed glitchy and expensive, prompting Ukraine to turn to alternatives from China
Updated April 10, 2024 at 4:56 pm ET
The Silicon Valley company Skydio sent hundreds of its best drones to Ukraine to help fight the Russians. Things didn’t go well.
WSJ
👇
Chinese UAVs ‘Outperform’ US Drones In Ukraine War; WSJ Report Calls US-Made UAVs Fragile & Ineffective
April 10, 2024
According to WSJ, most small unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) developed by American firms have struggled to perform in combat scenarios.
This development blows the hopes of these companies, who anticipated that combat testing would bolster sales and attention for their products.
Moreover, it poses challenges for the Pentagon, which requires a reliable supply of thousands of small drones for various purposes. Sources cited in the report, including drone company executives, Ukrainian frontline personnel, government officials, and former US military officials, outline several key issues plaguing US-made drones.
These include exorbitant costs, technical faults, and complex repair processes. In particular, Ukrainian officials have found US-made drones to be fragile and ineffective against Russian jamming and GPS blackout technology.
Instances have been reported where these drones failed to take off, complete missions, or return safely. Moreover, they often fall short of advertised flight distances and payload capacities.
Eurasiatimesnews
👇
American drones are glitching and getting lost in Ukraine, giving way to a flood of Chinese drones
Chris Panella Apr 10, 2024, 3:44 PM ET
American-made drones haven't excelled on the battlefield, prompting Ukraine to turn to buying Chinese-made drones.
* The problems with many US-made drones, particularly some of the smaller ones, are that they often don't function as advertised or planned and easily glitch when targeted by Russian jamming, sources told The Wall Street Journal.
They are fragile and vulnerable to electronic warfare. For some of the systems that were sent to Ukraine, issues included not taking off, getting lost and not returning home, or simply failing to meet mission expectations.
* US drones are also typically far more expensive than comparable models. And at the rate Ukraine is burning through them, it wouldn't be feasible. Instead, Ukraine is turning to systems made by Chinese companies for cheaper and often more reliable alternatives.
Chinese DJI drones have long played a role in the war, with Ukraine buying many of the retail models. Ukrainian forces sometimes strap bombs directly on them for a makeshift one-way attack drone or use them to drop grenades.
BI
👇
China's trade turnover with Ukraine rises by 46.6% to $1.5 bln in January-February
18 March 2024 23:30 (UTC+04:00)
AzerNews
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
When the USA destabilizes Governments/Props up dictators, causes vvar or goes to vvar
Telling people the USA way of Government and life is better
Then what do you expect?
Reminds me of those Hong Kong protesters waving American flags
Thinking life is better in the west with democracy and freedoms
When we who live out west, know the real truth
👇
BN(O) visa immigrants: Study reveals 50% unemployment rate among Hong Kongers under 65 in the U.K., 99% have no plans to return
* 22nd November 2023 – (London) A recent study conducted by the “Welcoming Committee for Hong Kongers” organisation, which assists Hong Kongers who have immigrated to the U.K. through the BN(O) Visa, has shed light on the employment situation of these individuals. The study surveyed over 2,000 Hong Kong immigrants and found that only 50% of those under the age of 65 were able to secure employment, indicating a significant unemployment rate among this group.
The study also highlighted the educational background of BN(O) Hong Kongers in the U.K. It revealed that 36% of the surveyed individuals held a master’s or doctoral degree, while 23% had a postgraduate degree. These figures indicate that BN(O) Hong Kongers in the U.K are nearly twice as well-educated as the average UK population.
* However, despite their educational qualifications, many BN(O) Hong Kongers are facing difficulties in securing employment that matches their skills and experience. Among those surveyed who were employed, 47% felt that their job did not align with their qualifications, and 20% felt that their workload was excessive.
DimSumDaily
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1