7 Nights Parking wrote:
He tested positive, both A and B sample. That's generally considered foolproof evidence. Short of a confession, this is how it works.
There's no speculation to that, he announced that both his A and B sample tested positive.
That he is 37 years old would be a motive to dope in my opinion, and that is speculation.
Just about everyone proclaims their innocence after testing positive!
The rules are set up so there is strict liability, so no matter how it got there, it's the athlete's fault. That makes things easier for the antidoping agencies—you are assumed guilty unless you can prove otherwise. Sometimes people have been able to prove otherwise—contaminated supplements are probably the most common way people legitimately get their suspensions cut. So no, it's not "foolproof".
In US courts, the philosophy of "beyond a reasonable doubt" is that it's better that 10 guilty people be freed due to doubts if that saves one innocent person from being falsely convicted. In sport antidoping, it's the opposite philosophy. Antidoping is probably a net positive, but there are definitely problematic issues with it.
Based on this news, it's more probable that Angermund doped than not. But if he didn't, I hope the substance turns up as a contaminant in one of his supplements or something like that. Yes, the investigators can tell the difference between someone trying to contaminate their pills on their own vs. getting a sealed package with the same manufacturing codes, etc.—they aren't idiots.