PGAT & Random Drug Testing

[bcjim]

On 3/18/2024 at 1:05 AM, bobfoster said:

Some offbeat ruminations. Walked on as a single this past Saturday, got paired with a dude that works for the company that handles the drug testing for a lot of professional sports. Handles the NFL, NBA, MLB, and is even participating in the Olympics this year. Also does college sports. And does the PGAT. This was completely new to me - apparently drugs testing for pro sports is simply a business, with different companies competing for contracts to administer the tests. 

 

As you can imagine, some fascinating conversations - isn't golf great? I've met the most interesting people.

 

Couple curious things? 

 

First, he said the PGAT was way down the list of potential suspicious characters. The folks in our sport apparently usually just don't do drugs. And he said a lot of the (rare times) they were caught, it was often just a mistake that they owned up to ... i.e., these weren't guys taking steroids they know are illegal and trying to hide it, but rather taking some OTC or prescribed drug for a physical condition, and not realizing that it was banned. 

 

The worst? The NFL and MLB. And (this is weird) the absolute worst is ... (believe it or not), college Lacrosse. (I mean, what the heck?)

 

And I hadn't realized how sophisticated both drug testing, and drug testing avoidance strategies (used by players to avoid popping positive) have become. H

 

Anyway - interesting conversation. is company doesn't just test for drugs, but for "masking agents and behaviors". 

 

I asked him about the PGAT's low rates. He went off on this long (biochemical) explanation. The majority of the positive hits across all sports is apparently steroids, and HGH (which technically isn't a steroid - it's a peptide, but sorta has some similar effects). But here's the thing - steroids can build you serious muscle mass and make you stronger (and longer), but they also mess with fine motor controls. So long and short of it, if you are an NFL linebacker, and need to stop some 250 lb beast running at you full force, steroids would give a huge advantage. And would give a golfer an advantage off the tee on a long par 5. But that golfer also needs to face the incredible precision of a bump and run with a short wedge 10 feet off the green. And not only would steroids not help, they could actually hurt. 

 

Anyway, interesting conversation. Though I personally want nothing to do with drugs, I get that a lot of people experiment. But really? My impression of them is:

 

WADA affiliated sports get tested for a very comprehensive list of banned substances. 

 

Ncaa is another story.  I don't believe they are wada affiliated and if that's still true,  makes them non serious in my opinion in terms of catching drug cheats. I don't think they even necessarily share failed tests with the NGBs or act on non ncaa admistestered failures.  There is currently a high profile athlete who failed a test outside of the system and is still on their ncaa roster, though not competing.  

I'm not sure about the current ncaa tests but I'd wonder if those lax bros are ringing up positive tests for recreational drugs more frequently then for performance enhancing stuff. 

[Ferguson]

1 hour ago, RSLP said:

I dislike doping, but it is here to stay. 

 

35+ year old guys are not keeping up just with TPI drills and speed training!  Senior Tour and the PGA owned feeder tours are under the same rules, and it seems like those gents have a lot more on the line to improve quickly.

 

Therapeutic exemptions are the best way "around" the system.  Doubt these are given out fairly.  Going out on medical, and leaving the testing pool is another way "around" the system.  Trying to "cheat" the bottle at the events or at a random call is not a good solution.

 

 

 

Social media is flooded for weeks at a time using HD TV and photo close-ups to debate ball movement or rules violations or improper drops by players but brings no attention to chemical cheating.   

 

This is unbelievable.  

 

 

[Hawkeye77]

I have to believe that a company paid to administer tests and/or a testing program has strict rules about non-disclosure --- not impressed with a guy in a golf outing who wants to "tell" - even the bits that seem innocuous are things he has no business commenting on - should be "that's my job but I can't really talk about it". 

Edited March 20 by Hawkeye77

[TiScape]

2 hours ago, Ferguson said:

 

It couldn't have been Dr. Mike Swango. 

 

IDK. Heavy set fellow that seemed to know everything. There is one at every event 😊

[betarhoalphadelta]

4 hours ago, Hawkeye77 said:

I have to believe that a company paid to administer tests and/or a testing program has strict rules about non-disclosure --- not impressed with a guy in a golf outing who wants to "tell" - even the bits that seem innocuous are things he has no business commenting on - should be "that's my job but I can't really talk about it". 

 

Eh, to an extent I doubt the guy was spilling the beans about anything critical. At my company (large multinational corp) we have regular trainings on handling confidential information, intellectual property, trade secrets, insider trading, etc. The stuff I could get fired (and possibly sued) for disclosing, or in the case of financials/insider trading, go to jail. I could spend 4 hours on a golf course with you talking about my job/industry without violating any of that. I wouldn't, because I'd bore you to tears, but I could. 

 

I'm assuming this guy wasn't saying things like: "So we had this one player, let's just call him 'Dottie Deffler' <wink> whose results were..."

 

I have a buddy who's a fellow engineer, and works in the defense industry. He has a security clearance. We talk about our jobs. He knows there's a line he can't cross and if a discussion gets too close to that line, he lets me know and we move on to other stuff. 

[m d g]

On 3/18/2024 at 1:02 PM, caniac6 said:

I thought they quit testing for marijuana because the positive returns were so high.

 

Not sure why they would bother with THC.

 

It is the least performance-enhancing substance on the planet, dude...

[miami1023]

I wonder how prevalent adderall is. I remember hearing it was rampant in baseball and would make the ball look 3 times the size. Seems like it would be perfect for 4 straight hours of hyper focus although I’d imagine you’d get pretty shaky over putts.

[bscinstnct]

4 hours ago, TiScape said:

IDK. Heavy set fellow that seemed to know everything. There is one at every event 😊

I need some ‘roids yo!

 

Where I get those? 🤔 

 

Put them in me brotein shake with Nestle Quick and bench 690 like Arnold 

 

Oh it’s actually brotein time now!

 

 

Edited March 20 by bscinstnct

[Zach.buckler23]

All i gotta Say is check Matt fitzpatrick 

[hackeraz]

On 3/20/2024 at 4:44 AM, SlothofDespond said:

 

Once the federal government reschedules it (possibly this year) I expect some movement on its inclusion in drug testing panels. Regardless of whether states legalize it, it's a Schedule I on the federal level, and an easy decision for entities to include on the roster of recreational drugs to test for right now.

 

With that said, the situation is increasingly ridiculous. I'm in a state where there are dispensaries everywhere. Half a dozen or more in my town alone. There's a lovely one down the street, you can walk in and buy as much as you want as often as you want. It's civilized.

WADA will keep marijuana on the banned list as it's proven to have benefit in endurance sports, most notably running.

 

I firmly believe the PGAT is pretty lax on their testing standards and enforcements, Tiger is a prime example. The fact that they are so secretive about bans and testing administration/results only supports this. I wouldn't be shocked to find TRT use all across the board and numerous prescriptions for Adderall as well. 

[miami1023]

38 minutes ago, hackeraz said:

WADA will keep marijuana on the banned list as it's proven to have benefit in endurance sports, most notably running.

 

I firmly believe the PGAT is pretty lax on their testing standards and enforcements, Tiger is a prime example. The fact that they are so secretive about bans and testing administration/results only supports this. I wouldn't be shocked to find TRT use all across the board and numerous prescriptions for Adderall as well. 

I guess this makes sense as all the stoners in high school ran cross country

[m d g]

24 minutes ago, miami1023 said:

I guess this makes sense as all the stoners in high school ran cross country

 

Yes, I fondly remember my high school days.

 

We'd smoke some joints and the first thing we wanted to do was run 10 miles.

 

It was either that or binge on Doritos and crank up the latest Boston album...

[golfortennis]

On 3/20/2024 at 4:00 PM, m d g said:

 

Not sure why they would bother with THC.

 

It is the least performance-enhancing substance on the planet, dude...

 

Because you're mistakenly thinking these drug testing programs for pro sports are actually about performance or health.  They are about PR.  Ever notice when a drug suspension is announced, it's always some middling low-level(relatively) athlete?  This way they can show they are "tough on drug use"  without actually hurting their business by removing stars from the product.  Or you go after someone on the back end of their career.  Maria Sharapova for instance.   The PR bit is that "we have only clean competitors, no one has to risk their health to compete at the highest level, and (the money comment) we set a good example for the kids."  What is interesting though is how much science there is behind it now, and where is the line between treatment and PED?

 

The therapeutic use exemption is but one of the holes big enough to drive a Mack truck through.  Someone mentioned cycling.  Pretty much every cyclist has a TUE for an asthma inhaler, in a dose that would suggest someone has a severe asthma condition, yet someone this same person can, with just a puff or two, ride at a world class level?  Heck Serena Williams had a couple of occasions where her TUE was backdated.  Right.  The doctor just forgot.

[hackeraz]

1 hour ago, golfortennis said:

 

Because you're mistakenly thinking these drug testing programs for pro sports are actually about performance or health.  They are about PR.  Ever notice when a drug suspension is announced, it's always some middling low-level(relatively) athlete?  This way they can show they are "tough on drug use"  without actually hurting their business by removing stars from the product.  Or you go after someone on the back end of their career.  Maria Sharapova for instance.   The PR bit is that "we have only clean competitors, no one has to risk their health to compete at the highest level, and (the money comment) we set a good example for the kids."  What is interesting though is how much science there is behind it now, and where is the line between treatment and PED?

 

The therapeutic use exemption is but one of the holes big enough to drive a Mack truck through.  Someone mentioned cycling.  Pretty much every cyclist has a TUE for an asthma inhaler, in a dose that would suggest someone has a severe asthma condition, yet someone this same person can, with just a puff or two, ride at a world class level?  Heck Serena Williams had a couple of occasions where her TUE was backdated.  Right.  The doctor just forgot.

TUEs exist, but as you mentioned they are just for things like inhalers and thyroid meds, not the most egregious of offenses as one still cannot obtain a TUE for TRT. There is truth in some of what you have said but it fully depends on the sport and its own governing body. Track and Field has gone through tremendous lengths to try and ensure clean competition as has cycling (recently) but doping tests will forever be two steps behind the science. The PR is squarely in the big three (four?) US sports. 

[golfortennis]

56 minutes ago, hackeraz said:

TUEs exist, but as you mentioned they are just for things like inhalers and thyroid meds, not the most egregious of offenses as one still cannot obtain a TUE for TRT. There is truth in some of what you have said but it fully depends on the sport and its own governing body. Track and Field has gone through tremendous lengths to try and ensure clean competition as has cycling (recently) but doping tests will forever be two steps behind the science. The PR is squarely in the big three (four?) US sports. 

 

Wife and I are pretty big track and field fans.  World Athletics has a major credibility problem on their hands.  First of all, Justin Gatlin, a *twice-suspended* athlete, who also happened to be able to run faster at 37 than he could at 23.  Puh-lease.  Kenyan doping is an open secret, and oh yeah, that Salazar guy with his Nike Oregon Project.  There is a book about Jamaica's doping program in track.  

 

The more time goes on the less I believe it, but I was always of the opinion that if someone was clean, Usain Bolt would be it, due to physics.  He covered the ground in fewer strides, so if his turnover rate is the same as the other guys, he wins, plain and simple.  Whether he could turnover at the same rate is another discussion, but does World Athletics really suspend him and keep him out of their championships?  The attention and money he brought to the sport far outweighed anything "good" about nailing him for a positive drug test.  As I said, you nail a small fish now and then, to make it look good, but you leave the stars alone.

 

The only time a star has been nailed, is Ben Johnson, and that was a lining up of the stars, because the IOC wasn't going after Carl Lewis(NBC paid waaaayyyy too much money for the rights to go after a sacred cow), and the other countries were going to put up a fight.  Ben Johnson was the perfect foil because they knew Canada would react they way we did:  "How dare he?  How can we have cheaters in our midst?"  It gave them the perfect cover to say "see, we don't tolerate this stuff.  There was a whole inquiry up here about PED's in track.  No one has ever done anything like it since.  I wonder why?  And no star on the scale of Johnson has been nailed in his prime since.  

 

As for cycling....Tadej Pogacar blew that lid off a few years ago at the Tour de France with his time trial on the second last stage.  It's no cleaner than it was before, just hidden better. 

[m d g]

2 hours ago, golfortennis said:

Because you're mistakenly thinking these drug testing programs for pro sports are actually about performance or health.  They are about PR.

 

Then why haven't they busted Viktor?

 

: )

 

[hackeraz]

46 minutes ago, golfortennis said:

 

Wife and I are pretty big track and field fans.  World Athletics has a major credibility problem on their hands.  First of all, Justin Gatlin, a *twice-suspended* athlete, who also happened to be able to run faster at 37 than he could at 23.  Puh-lease.  Kenyan doping is an open secret, and oh yeah, that Salazar guy with his Nike Oregon Project.  There is a book about Jamaica's doping program in track.  

 

The more time goes on the less I believe it, but I was always of the opinion that if someone was clean, Usain Bolt would be it, due to physics.  He covered the ground in fewer strides, so if his turnover rate is the same as the other guys, he wins, plain and simple.  Whether he could turnover at the same rate is another discussion, but does World Athletics really suspend him and keep him out of their championships?  The attention and money he brought to the sport far outweighed anything "good" about nailing him for a positive drug test.  As I said, you nail a small fish now and then, to make it look good, but you leave the stars alone.

 

The only time a star has been nailed, is Ben Johnson, and that was a lining up of the stars, because the IOC wasn't going after Carl Lewis(NBC paid waaaayyyy too much money for the rights to go after a sacred cow), and the other countries were going to put up a fight.  Ben Johnson was the perfect foil because they knew Canada would react they way we did:  "How dare he?  How can we have cheaters in our midst?"  It gave them the perfect cover to say "see, we don't tolerate this stuff.  There was a whole inquiry up here about PED's in track.  No one has ever done anything like it since.  I wonder why?  And no star on the scale of Johnson has been nailed in his prime since.  

 

As for cycling....Tadej Pogacar blew that lid off a few years ago at the Tour de France with his time trial on the second last stage.  It's no cleaner than it was before, just hidden better. 

Definitely not fully disagreeing but I think you need to go back to the comment I made about the testing always being steps behind the science. USATF and WADA have been trying to clean things up, but unfortunately the abusers are always ahead of the game. Biological passport worked for a bit, and still do when people are stupid, but microdosing and new tech (drugs) keep them in front of the game. Not sure why you lump Salazar in there as he was nailed on extremely lame and grey area stuff which actually should have never stuck but they needed to make a statement. The only one I'm confident they will, and they most likely already have, turn a blind eye to is Kipchoge as he is their TW. 

[vman]

I’m sticking with deer antler spray.

[RSLP]

USA’s ONDCP has had some serious issues with WADA.

[golfortennis]

14 hours ago, hackeraz said:

Definitely not fully disagreeing but I think you need to go back to the comment I made about the testing always being steps behind the science. USATF and WADA have been trying to clean things up, but unfortunately the abusers are always ahead of the game. Biological passport worked for a bit, and still do when people are stupid, but microdosing and new tech (drugs) keep them in front of the game. Not sure why you lump Salazar in there as he was nailed on extremely lame and grey area stuff which actually should have never stuck but they needed to make a statement. The only one I'm confident they will, and they most likely already have, turn a blind eye to is Kipchoge as he is their TW. 

 

I don't disagree about testing being behind, I just think the powers that be in sports turn a very big blind eye to the issue, because records and stars bring the money in.  I'm not sure what I think of WADA myself, but it is strange that a Canadian was the one who really pushed for WADA to exist.  And I'm not saying that is a good thing because I'm Canadian, just that, as I stated before, Canada seems to be the only place that cares about it, and I'm not so sure it's something that should be cared about  like it seems to be.  

[hackeraz]

2 hours ago, golfortennis said:

 

I don't disagree about testing being behind, I just think the powers that be in sports turn a very big blind eye to the issue, because records and stars bring the money in.  I'm not sure what I think of WADA myself, but it is strange that a Canadian was the one who really pushed for WADA to exist.  And I'm not saying that is a good thing because I'm Canadian, just that, as I stated before, Canada seems to be the only place that cares about it, and I'm not so sure it's something that should be cared about  like it seems to be.  

You ever see the burrito trucks lining up outside the curling rink? Canada isn't so innocent! 

[bsuwara]

Anyone interested in watching a great documentary on PED’s should watch “Icarus” on Netflix.

[aenemated]

I hear the use of dihydrogen monoxide is OFF THE CHARTS. 

 

BAN DHMO! 

[BlackDiamondPar5]

This is also a good, short documentary on juicing 🤣

 

[golfortennis]

5 hours ago, hackeraz said:

You ever see the burrito trucks lining up outside the curling rink? Canada isn't so innocent! 

 

Canada is not innocent.  The Dubin inquiry should disabuse anyone of that notion.  I just meant we seem to be the only country where suits and media care about it beyond a "oh, yeah they shouldn't do that."  But proclamations don't carry any weight with athletes.  Results do.

 

But have I discovered methane is the new HGH?

Edited March 26 by golfortennis

[Mrgreen36]

On 3/25/2024 at 6:06 PM, m d g said:

 

Then why haven't they busted Viktor?

 

: )

 

 

Because they took into account what Bob Saget said about weed on half baked.  

 

It's true, never had to, never even crossed my mind. 😆 

[bobfoster]

On 3/20/2024 at 11:01 AM, Hawkeye77 said:

I have to believe that a company paid to administer tests and/or a testing program has strict rules about non-disclosure --- not impressed with a guy in a golf outing who wants to "tell" - even the bits that seem innocuous are things he has no business commenting on - should be "that's my job but I can't really talk about it". 

A very valid point (and one that few would notice).

 

But he was  quite careful about that. Nothing prevented him from talking about what he did in general terms, but I notice he never mentioned a single player by name, in any sport. He talked about the sports, and even some of the teams his company tested (which, in fact, is completely public record), but never about any specific results for any specific team. And, BTW, I never asked - I simply assumed he'd be bound by an NDA. (Probably half the conference calls and Teams/Zoom meetings I do on a daily basis are covered by NDAs - I'm somewhat sensitive about the issue.) 

 

And I know a bit about this. The work my company does often deals with confidential information. All of my employees go through extensive background checks, and many get drug tested (at this point, most clients require it). There are pretty stringent regulations governing what someone privy to test results can and cannot talk about, and who they can talk about it with (e.g., a few specific people can see full results, others only can get a partial "passed/didn't pass" results with no further details, and still others can't even know who's been tested, and for what). We had a very pleasant conversation because I knew there were hard lines he could not cross, and he came to understand I knew where those lines were, and wasn't even going to ask him to cross them. 

 

So - correct to bring up the issue, but this guy actually was kind of impressive precisely because he took strict confidentiality seriously. (I may have given a wrong impression, as I didn't mention any of this context in my original post - but it certainly was there.)

Edited April 1 by bobfoster

[dubbelbogey]

Yup - I worked in engineering in both the defense and medical industries where information security is taken very seriously - sometimes with criminal or even life/death consequences. Most everybody within those fields knows how to talk about what they do yet still stay well within the lines of not disclosing what they shouldn't. It's virtually 2nd nature to these folks.

 

The only folks I know who simply don't talk about anything at all about what they do work at places like Sandia and Los Alamos. They'll usually say something like "I'm a scientist and I live in Los Alamos". That's it.

[Hawkeye77]

27 minutes ago, bobfoster said:

A very valid point (and one that few would notice).

 

But he was  quite careful about that. Nothing prevented him from talking about what he did in general terms, but I notice he never mentioned a single player by name, in any sport. He talked about the sports, and even some of the teams his company tested (which, in fact, is completely public record), but never about any specific results for any specific team. And, BTW, I never asked - I simply assumed he's be bound by an NDA. (Probably half the conference calls and Teams/Zoom meetings I do on a daily basis are covered by NDAs - I'm somewhat sensitive about the issue.) 

 

And I know a bit about this. The work my company does often deals with confidential information. All of my employees go through extensive background checks, and many get drug tested (at this point, most clients require it). There are pretty stringent regulations governing what someone privy to test results can and cannot talk about, and who they can talk about it with (e.g., a few specific people can see full results, others only can get a partial "passed/didn't pass" results with no further details, and still others can't even know who's been tested, and for what). We had a very pleasant conversation because I knew there were hard lines he could not cross, and he came to understand I knew where those lines were, and wasn't even going to ask him to cross them. 

 

So - correct to bring up the issue, but this guy actually was kind of impressive precisely because he took strict confidentiality seriously. 

 

Hey, if the guy wants to talk I'm going to listen, lol.

 

But I don't agree - I read the summary you gave of all the insights he provided - all of which are stated in a way that those conclusions and/or observations are based on data his company collected in golf and across other sports.  If that isn't publicly available information he shouldn't comment at all or act "in the know".  But maybe it is generally available from their company or generally, but didn't sound like it. Maybe he came off very professional about it and wasn't wanting to look cool in some sense, which would be great, but IMO he talked way too much but . . . I haven't seen the NDA and don't know what generally they may publish that gets released in some fashion, so for sure he could have been not giving away anything.  No comment seems to be the best policy if you are a confidence keeper, IMO.

[bobfoster]

6 hours ago, Hawkeye77 said:

 

Hey, if the guy wants to talk I'm going to listen, lol.

 

But I don't agree - I read the summary you gave of all the insights he provided - all of which are stated in a way that those conclusions and/or observations are based on data his company collected in golf and across other sports.  If that isn't publicly available information he shouldn't comment at all or act "in the know".  But maybe it is generally available from their company or generally, but didn't sound like it. Maybe he came off very professional about it and wasn't wanting to look cool in some sense, which would be great, but IMO he talked way too much but . . . I haven't seen the NDA and don't know what generally they may publish that gets released in some fashion, so for sure he could have been not giving away anything.  No comment seems to be the best policy if you are a confidence keeper, IMO.

Well, I mean, I'm not going to try to convince you of anything (dumb to do so when people's minds are clearly made up). If you don't want to agree, don't agree. But maybe you are making too much of this? It isn't like this guy had state secrets that could cause WWIII (hope not, I'm totally not ready for WWIII - heck, I just got done taking down my Covid decorations 😂).

 

To get specific, NDAs follow contractual workstreams. The leagues (MLB, NFL, etc.) sign contracts with teams - they have NDAs. And they choose an independent third party to administer drug tests. And they have NDAs. And the teams (or in our case, the PGAT) signs contracts with their players that require them to take those tests. They have NDAs. Specific NDAs are in place between all those complex relationships: League > teams, Teams > players, Leagues and teams > testing company. Each knows who they can talk to, and about what, and who they can't. It is articulated in precise legal language. 

 

So then we wind up with this somewhat bizarre (though actually quite common) conundrum. My new friend was perfectly free to give me the information he gave me - about general trends, high level details about individual sports. So long as he never mentioned the results from any individual team, or player. According to contracts, the company doing the testing could mention what leagues they are testing for. In fact, if you want to know the company, the MLB, NFL, and PGAT all publicly state what company they have hired to administer their drug testing programs. You can look it up.

 

That company itself however, and its employees (my new friend), are bound by strict NDAs, and cannot release any specific testing results. But the leagues, and teams, are not only not bound by such restrictions, but in fact often make them public. You commonly hear an NFL team announcing that player X got a three game suspension for drugs. In fact, last year the PGAT publicly announced that Byeong Hun An got a three month suspension (for testing positive for a named, restricted drug that also - accidentally - turned out to be in a cough medicine sold OTC in Korea). 

 

So here's the weird, convoluted thing about NDA contractual flowdowns. My buddy could (and did) talk to me in general terms about the PGAT - as I mentioned in my initial post. Told me that for the most part, golfers rarely tried to get around drug testing, but most often popped positive accidentally and inadvertently (as was exactly the case here). But - and here's the weird thing - he would not have been able to talk to me (and didn't) about that specific case, even though it had already been made public by the PGAT, due to his NDA. The contract the players have with the PGAT allows the PGAT to talk about test results - and discuss any penalties that result from infractions - if it wishes to. But the contract my friend's firm has with the PGAT does not permit them or their employees to talk about any specific results at all (even if the PGAT does). And he didn't. 

 

You might "feel" like he broke some spirit of the law (as it were). But when it comes to NDA language, there is no spirit of the law. There is merely contractual language (the NDAs I commonly sign with my clients and employees are multiple pages long, and full of dense legalize). I had a fascinating, interesting conversation (part of which I shared here), but my friend not only didn't cross the line, he didn't come anywhere close to it. He was very careful about not doing it, and I was very careful to not even ask him to do it. 

 

I think few people get the nuances of this unless they have had to deal with it. I have federal government clearances, have been background checked and fingerprinted and vetted to within an inch of my life. My firm works in the retirement industry. I'll commonly do conference calls with two or three different firms that I'll consult with, that vigorously compete with each other. All of whom give me inside information, that I have to be very careful to keep compartmentalized. Makes me almost dizzy sometimes. 

 

I think people like @dubbelbogey (and anyone else that has had to wrestle with "what you know, and who and how much you can talk about it) gets this. But you may not. 

 

My friend told me some very interesting things, but he stayed well within his contractual lines. You can accept that or not. Just trying to paint a full picture here. Even though I have probably bored the living bejesus out of everyone at this point 🤣.