Here is his last ban which he got overturned on appeal. It shows how broken the system is that you can blatantly lie like this and win a case:
--------
Roberts stated that Salazar had kept the illness hidden out of fear she wouldn't get to spend as much time with Roberts. Salazar testified that she'd gotten a sinus infection while on a family vacation in India where she then obtained a 14-day antibiotic - that is now out of production. Claiming to have a disdain towards swallowing pills, Salazar testified that she would empty the capsule's contents on her tongue. And three-hours after an intense bit of 'passionate kissing,' Roberts had to give a urine sample, she testified.
The arbitrator who actually heard the evidence and made the factual findings determined that Roberts met his burden of proof in that case. Who are you to assert otherwise, and go even further by stating that Roberts "blatantly lied"?
Interestingly, in Roberts' first doping case, USADA didn't believe him, which is why the case went into arbitration. Their expert witness testified that the drug couldn't have come from the kissing, while Roberts' expert witness opined that it could have.
Sadly, neither expert referred to any study to substantiate their claim, and neither quantified a possibility estimate. Though the burden of proof rested on Roberts, the arbitrator ruled that that burden was met.
Throughout the award, the arbitrator keeps referring to two other kissing cases, where the athlete got off too. I fear this case then sets another such unfortunate precedent.
Interestingly, in Roberts' first doping case, USADA didn't believe him, which is why the case went into arbitration. Their expert witness testified that the drug couldn't have come from the kissing, while Roberts' expert witness opined that it could have.
Sadly, neither expert referred to any study to substantiate their claim, and neither quantified a possibility estimate. Though the burden of proof rested on Roberts, the arbitrator ruled that that burden was met.
Throughout the award, the arbitrator keeps referring to two other kissing cases, where the athlete got off too. I fear this case then sets another such unfortunate precedent.
I very fortunate precedent as it balances the unreasonable burden of strict liability.
AIU should appeal the case to CAS so it can be ruled on by a panel that's less biased than USADA.
+1
It's also strange how little attention this thread gets. After all, this is an Olympic Gold medalist who just got caught with his second positive test, and actually our third Olympic Gold medalist who got banned in 21/22. And yet, letsrun's favorite doper has no global medal to speak of, at age 28 (now 29) yet her ban from 21 gets all the attention here, again and again. Hmmmm...
Your favorite p.e.d. user most likely told a huge lie and she would admit zero guilt. Happens all the time. Refuse to make a deal, punished significantly. Your favorite female Iowa doper thought we were dumb enough to believe her lies.
AIU should appeal the case to CAS so it can be ruled on by a panel that's less biased than USADA.
+1
It's also strange how little attention this thread gets. After all, this is an Olympic Gold medalist who just got caught with his second positive test, and actually our third Olympic Gold medalist who got banned in 21/22. And yet, letsrun's favorite doper has no global medal to speak of, at age 28 (now 29) yet her ban from 21 gets all the attention here, again and again. Hmmmm...
This is primarily a distance running forum, so the majority of posters here post about distance runners.
Interestingly, in Roberts' first doping case, USADA didn't believe him, which is why the case went into arbitration. Their expert witness testified that the drug couldn't have come from the kissing, while Roberts' expert witness opined that it could have.
Sadly, neither expert referred to any study to substantiate their claim, and neither quantified a possibility estimate. Though the burden of proof rested on Roberts, the arbitrator ruled that that burden was met.
Throughout the award, the arbitrator keeps referring to two other kissing cases, where the athlete got off too. I fear this case then sets another such unfortunate precedent.
I very fortunate precedent as it balances the unreasonable burden of strict liability.
If I understand your comment correctly, I agree. Also, as I recall, the problem with the testing went beyond the the burden of strict liability, but also offered no minimal threshold amount of the substance for triggering a positive test. Strict liability is a very useful legal theory that gets away from the rather unproductive and unnecessary negligence- or fault-based analyses in some of these cases. Zero-threshold, however, is often just laziness.
I confess that my interest in this case is largely personal. The arbitrator, John Charles Thomas, is a longtime friend and colleague, a smart and funny guy and a former justice of the Virginia Supreme Court. In some legal circles, he's a legend. He takes these cases because he enjoys them. He's beholden to no one, and he sure doesn't need the money that comes with arbitrating obscure doping cases in semi-professional sports. I trust his ability to get these cases right.
I very fortunate precedent as it balances the unreasonable burden of strict liability.
If I understand your comment correctly, I agree. Also, as I recall, the problem with the testing went beyond the the burden of strict liability, but also offered no minimal threshold amount of the substance for triggering a positive test. Strict liability is a very useful legal theory that gets away from the rather unproductive and unnecessary negligence- or fault-based analyses in some of these cases. Zero-threshold, however, is often just laziness.
I confess that my interest in this case is largely personal. The arbitrator, John Charles Thomas, is a longtime friend and colleague, a smart and funny guy and a former justice of the Virginia Supreme Court. In some legal circles, he's a legend. He takes these cases because he enjoys them. He's beholden to no one, and he sure doesn't need the money that comes with arbitrating obscure doping cases in semi-professional sports. I trust his ability to get these cases right.
You are so right to point to the laziness of applying strict liability with zero tolerance.
That is why it is becoming normal to find athletes guilty whilst at the same time saying they have not chested nor gained any benefit.
I miss the good old days when runners were banned for steroids. What the heck is an androgen receptor modulator?
Selective Androgen Receptor Modulators are basically enhanced anabolic steroids where they're designed to increase anabolic activity (nitrogen retention, positive protein metabolism, etc) vs a reduction in the androgenic activity (male secondary sex characteristics), and improve the anabolic/androgenic ratio better than the current available anabolic steroids.
Since SARMS are oral compounds - they were also designed to exhibit less hepatotoxicity & renal toxicity.
Some good analysis by Derek (More Plates More Dates) of the efficacy & safety of the popular SARMs bring used:
➢ Automatically receive MPMD articles when they are published: http://bit.ly/2mtASGW————————————💊 https://gorillamind.com/derek (Gorilla Mind - My Fully Loa...
➢ Automatically receive MPMD articles when they are published: http://bit.ly/2mtASGW————————————💊 https://gorillamind.com/derek (Gorilla Mind - My Fully Loa...
If I understand your comment correctly, I agree. Also, as I recall, the problem with the testing went beyond the the burden of strict liability, but also offered no minimal threshold amount of the substance for triggering a positive test. Strict liability is a very useful legal theory that gets away from the rather unproductive and unnecessary negligence- or fault-based analyses in some of these cases. Zero-threshold, however, is often just laziness.
I confess that my interest in this case is largely personal. The arbitrator, John Charles Thomas, is a longtime friend and colleague, a smart and funny guy and a former justice of the Virginia Supreme Court. In some legal circles, he's a legend. He takes these cases because he enjoys them. He's beholden to no one, and he sure doesn't need the money that comes with arbitrating obscure doping cases in semi-professional sports. I trust his ability to get these cases right.
You are so right to point to the laziness of applying strict liability with zero tolerance.
That is why it is becoming normal to find athletes guilty whilst at the same time saying they have not chested nor gained any benefit.
Unfair madness.
No wonder pro USA sports won’t go near WADA.
You guys couldn't have been more wrong. This serial cheater just got caught again. Finally. Superb!
Dude hasn't run a competitive race since 2020. Where was he being tested, the mall food court?
Just playing game theory though, if you're 35 and your career is basically over, I can see some logic to thinking "Alright it's an Olympic year, let me take all of the juice I can, if I get banned, whatever, I was going to retire anyway" and hope I pass a bunch of tests.
Dude hasn't run a competitive race since 2020. Where was he being tested, the mall food court?
Just playing game theory though, if you're 35 and your career is basically over, I can see some logic to thinking "Alright it's an Olympic year, let me take all of the juice I can, if I get banned, whatever, I was going to retire anyway" and hope I pass a bunch of tests.
Exactly he's a 3 time loser and is as old as dirt for a sprinter, so this is really much a do about nothing.
Help us build the best running shoe review site for a chance to win a LetsRun t-shirt.Help us build the best running shoe review site for a chance to win one of 10 LetsRun t-shirts.