Issam Asinga banned 4 years by AIU, stripped of World U20 100m record

I would bet good money that lawsuit ends up quietly being dropped. The point of filing the lawsuit was to be able to say he's doing so, there's no way his lawyers expect to win or even take it to a settlement

LOL !! The four year ban means they didn't believe a word he had to say.

Ben Johnson claimed one of Carl Lewis's friends spiked his beer right before testing post Olympics.

I mean, if you're gonna cheat at least think up a better excuse when you get popped. it's always the same BS with these guys. Maybe some of these cheaters should hire a mystery novelist to come up with a more original and creative story that might at least seem plausible.

When does the ban end? Will he be able to run in the 2028 Olympics?

Well the burrito excuse was creative. Dumb, but creative.

He should be able to. I believe the ban expires July 2027

Roast this guy over the fire, same treatment as Lance Armstrong, Ben Johnson and Marion Jones had.

Then turn to all your clean heroes and bow to them.

Then wash your hands, get steam cleaned, you'll need it. And keep on doing it.

Only on LR could anybody compare Asinga to Armstrong.

Armstrong doped longer than Asinga has been alive.

Exactly! I thought him beating the eventual world champion was a little fishy.

Finally, a titan has fallen!!

The prediction the OP made 3 years ago has finally come true. I know he's made the same prediction/post every few months since then, but this is the Titan...lmao

Dennis Mitchell's excuse was the night before competing (and testing) he had a lot of sex and drank a 6 pack of beer, which raised whatever level was in question. I mean that seems like great preparation for a professional competition.

Was he tested after he went from 10.6 to 9.8?

An OJ Simpson Jury ?

national drugs body finds national hero innocent despite not meeting criteria of proving where contaminant came from.

maybe seb had a word in UKADA's ear?

UK has a bad record on doping, and, yes, im a local.

obviously listen to both sides, but be very very sceptical.

Chalk this one up and add it to the list:

Burritos

EPO puddles

Tainted toothpaste

The lady deserved a treat

Masseuse spiked me

Disappearing twin

Passionate kissing

Saddle sores

Birth control pills

Oh look, another anonymous poster trolling me.

This looks like another win for "strict liability" -- yay!

I think no one is calling for "blind acceptance" of "contamination" without "scrutiny", but it is unsurprising for the Chair of one of the parties in the dispute to state they are doing the right thing, and the former Director-General of WADA supporting an aggressive policy he helped create. Is he being objective, or using this occasion for PR?

Contrary to your "blind acceptance" of "adulteration", the DT wasn't convinced with the "adding the dope to his "gummies"" scenario either, noting "significant caveats", and that "contamination" and "adulteration" were "similarly feasible". There is an inherent advantage when the AIU bears no burden for its own speculation.

It is well known that taking supplements carries an inherent risk of contamination from an unlabelled substances, due to the lack of regulations in the supplement industry, or lack of consistent compliance to regulations, despite all the certifications. As such, WADA recommends "extreme caution", and warns that "QA schemes ... do not eliminate, the risk of an inadvertent doping infringement." Recall this is a 19-year old boy who did not buy the gummies, but won the gummies as a prize for being Gatorade Player of the Year. They were stamped with an NSF label. What is the expected due diligence here for this 19-year old rising star?

It is unsurprising to me to find yet another case where an athlete was banned for 4 years, for not being able to meet the legal burden imposed on athletes from a policy of "strict liability", or "guilty until proven innocent", despite testing his gummies and finding GW1516. This is particularly concerning when saving samples of your supplements from the same batch, which then test positive, and succeeding to identify the source, is still not enough to exonerate the athlete, but rather results in the full 4-year ban.

Instead, a 19-year old Surinamese boy living in the USA was forced to engage lawyers and scientists to explore the inner guts of Gatorade gummy production some 9 months earlier.

What I see in the DT report is a lot of open questions for all speculative scenarios, resulting in a decision with all of the uncertainties intact, due to a failure of the athlete to overcome the standard of "guilty until proven innocent". The consequence for this 19-year old, who was already required to fund his defense, is a full 4-year ban, return of any and all prize money, and 1,000 GBP payment to WA.

Wow!

Yet again, we can see the "strict liability" policy places a significant burden on innocent athletes. Here she spent not only £40,000 of borrowed money to prove her innocence to UKAD, but it effectively ended her career, and came at great mental and emotional cost for her and her family, with her feeling "suicidal for much of last year". Is that any different than the mental and emotional presssure young girls feel when cutting themselves under an abusive coach?

This statement from publicly available WADA data is particularly concerning: "it is possible that 316 athletes returned positive tests due to contamination in 2019 alone. This estimation is only for the six specific diuretics. The real figure is likely to be much higher."

And the hellish nightmare might not be over, as WADA may still appeal the ruling to the CAS beyond the 20-day window for appeal?

I'm all for sanctioning intentional dopers, but shouldn't we aim first, before we shoot?

Hahaha rekrunner with his trademark off-topic wall of texts, trying to blame the AIU to engage in propaganda to create doubt of this guilty verdict. Saw it coming!