There is no grey here at all. She skipped three tests. Not one. And not two. Three. Even if there was "confusion" over the third, the panel found it was a missed test.
The rules are clear and to be frank, no one misses three tests.
There are only two conclusions: she is a doper; or she is dumber than pretty much every other athlete subject to this protocol. Take your pick.
In either case she deserves a ban.
stop the madness wrote:
So that's it. The entire dispute hangs on that misunderstanding. The report even says that Rollins passed a drug test on May 3 (6 days after the April 27 missed test).
That's not a misunderstanding. If she can't be bothered to know her schedule days in advance, then she's brought it upon herself.
Or, doping. Passing a drug test is not hard. A couple of days to "cool off" is very typical of the ordinary androgenic doping and a urninalysis. She'd be guaranteed to pass an epo urinalysis with a couple of days to "cool off."
She was probably also being targetted as a suspect doper
rojo wrote:
And if you refuse to take a test, that's an immediate ban. I'm not sure why that would constitute be a whereabouts violation. Unless she was going to miss a flight (and it doesn't say anything like that), that to me is absurd that she can just say she's already through security. I mean it takes 2 minutes to go pee in a urinal.
LOL, Robert...
douglas burke wrote:
She apparently hired a Lawyer to write a response, to me when someone hires a Lawyer to respond it means there almost certainly guilty.
https://www.trackandfieldnews.com/index.php/category-features/3177-brianna-rollins-responds-to-one-year-sanctionShe should have saved money by NOT hiring a Lawyer and spoke for herself.
Can you try to write that in English now, please?
.
rojo wrote:
lolllzz wrote:Where does she train? If California or Colorado, maybe she was just toking and didn't want to get caught.
I was thinking about that but then remembered that pot is only banned now in competition now. You can smoke it outside of competition I believe
http://www.usada.org/substances/marijuana-faq/
Seems like training should be banned as well.
"...the international standard for identifying substances and methods prohibited in sport...
1) It has the potential to enhance or enhances sport performance.
2) It represents an actual or potential health risk to the athlete.
3) It violates the spirit of sport."
Training enhances performance.
Elite Training can pose a potential long term health risk to the athlete.
Gotta ban it I guess.
There are a least a thousand certified drug testers around LAX where she lives and trains.
telecran wrote:
douglas burke wrote:She apparently hired a Lawyer to write a response, to me when someone hires a Lawyer to respond it means there almost certainly guilty.
https://www.trackandfieldnews.com/index.php/category-features/3177-brianna-rollins-responds-to-one-year-sanctionShe should have saved money by NOT hiring a Lawyer and spoke for herself.
Hiring a lawyer doesn't make you guilty. It makes you smart.
NOP and Farah have hired lawyers and PR firms in their attempts to keep the USADA from thoroughly investigating them.
well that doesnt work very well....
google post cycle therapy
All sounds as if she was not too clever .
But one or two extra points .
How is it allowed that the tester contacts the athlete , i.e. Prior to the airport ; this is advance notice and is not allowed .
A test with the admin will take a min of half an hour and even then on the basis that you are ready to pee , so the airport business may make more sense .
You are allowed to refuse a test in "compelling " circumstances ; this may have been one .
How was the tester to obtain a secure toilet with no orhers gaining access ,as set out in the testing procedures ,at the airport , either at all or in the limited circumstances of the late visit to the airport ?
Interesting that the judgement made ref to the governing body needing to be more helpful ; gee wiz it gets more complicated all the time .
And they want to criminalise all this ; impossible .
she has a huge butt :)
Al Capone was convicted of tax evasion.
douglas burke wrote:
She apparently hired a Lawyer to write a response, to me when someone hires a Lawyer to respond it means there almost certainly guilty.
https://www.trackandfieldnews.com/index.php/category-features/3177-brianna-rollins-responds-to-one-year-sanctionShe should have saved money by NOT hiring a Lawyer and spoke for herself.
They're guilty not there guilty
Go back to fapping over the Dibabas
rojo wrote:
My goodness.
Any agents on here? I'm wondering how much money this will cost her. Most contracts have huge Olympic bonuses that roll into the base. But I imagine most now have some strict anti-doping language.
She's still the Olympic champ but do you think her sponsor will cut her loose moving forward? Or do the contracts not contain nullification clauses for something like this as she didn't actually test positive.
Anyone know?
No agents on LetsRun, only "morans"
They will be happy to respond
rojo wrote:
And if you refuse to take a test, that's an immediate ban. I'm not sure why that would constitute be a whereabouts violation. Unless she was going to miss a flight (and it doesn't say anything like that), that to me is absurd that she can just say she's already through security. I mean it takes 2 minutes to go pee in a urinal.
If the plane took off without her then of course she'd miss the flight.
I see no reason for all this harassment.
If the tester wanted to test her, why didn't he just get on the plane and test her on the plane????
Then if the plane took off, he could test her again when they got there.
There was no reason for HER to get off the plane, that she'd already legitimately boarded.
Alternatively, the tester could have called ahead and had someone ELSE test her when she got off the plane.
rojo wrote:
What you stated just isn't true and i'm wondering if it's intentional.
1) On the day you are talking about, which is the first missed test, they ended up finding her at the airport but she refused to come back through security.
That was missed test #1. She did not tell them it was going to be a "travel" day to Iowa until after they already had contacted her and tried to get her to take a test. She sent the email after everything happened and she already was in Iowa.
Robert is incorrect about stop the madness. What he wrote is true. Rollins had it in the system that she would be at her home from 7-8am on April 27th but also that she would be at Drake Relays. I believe the system has automatic dates for events (can someone confirm this). The system allows people to list different places for the same day because people can travel. The system does alert athletes if they don't have a specific one hour window where they are each day.
The ruling says, "Incident 1: Respondent’s whereabouts filing with USADA for the date of April 27, 2016 recorded that she would be at her primary residence in California (“Primary Residenceâ€) from “7:00 AM-8:00 AM†[the required 60-minute time slot] and that she would be in Des Moines, Iowa during “April 27-April 30.â€
Robert is correct that Rollins did not meet the tester once she came to the airport. I hadn't thought about that being a refused test.
"According to the DCO, when the DCO arrived at the airport she contacted Respondent by text message “to let her know that I was already there and she stated that she was getting off the shuttle and she did not have to go [to] the bathroom. . .. I called her and left a message, because I couldn’t find her. She called back and stated that she had already gone through security.†Respondent declined the DCO’s request to come back out to sign the standard form which would have stated that, “she was notified, that we met at the airport and that she could not provide a sample.â€
What would happen if the athlete can't provide a sample? Is that a refused test or are you allowed to do that.
Never seen a sport that tries so damn hard to destroy it's self. The hell with PED's.
rojo wrote:
What you stated just isn't true and i'm wondering if it's intentional.
1) On the day you are talking about, which is the first missed test, they ended up finding her at the airport but she refused to come back through security.
Lol, why would you say I'm intentionally lying? Read her defense again, the entire meat of it is her confusion with the online system. Yes, she did not come back through security, but I could understand that if she had to catch a flight. Her point was that it was a mix up on that day in the first place.
From Section 6, Contention of the Parties and Evidence
"She explained that in filing her whereabouts for the second quarter of 2016 (and all other quarters) she would first input her home address, then her 60-minute time slot [which was 7-8 a.m. at her home address], then her recurring appointments of which she was aware, then her competitions of which she was aware. The program populates the calendar dates for the repetitive items, such as the 60-minute time slot and recurring appointments, for the quarter automatically.
The competitions, which are often out of town, are accessed on the program by a “drop down†menu that lists the upcoming events known to Claimant [in the case of April 27, 2016, the Drake Relays]. Upon designating participation in a competition, the program automatically inserts it in its dates on the calendar and removes any recurring appointments on the same day. Respondent thought it also automatically removed the 60-minute time slot for those dates, but it does not do so, nor does it routinely prompt the athlete in cases where two events (the competition and the 60- minute time slot) remain listed for one day in two different cities."
Arbitrators says that her defense is invalid, while conceding that the USATF online system could be better.
"While we find she has failed to show a complete absence of negligence as to that. Incident, we do note that the computer filing system and the agencies connected with it have failed to design it to assist the athletes as much as possible to avoid confusion. The program does not alert an athlete that his/her filing is showing two events on the same day in two different cities, unless the athlete has inserted full addresses for the hotel where the athlete will be staying. It could easily do that."
I'm not saying she's free of blame. It's on her, and there were also those two other instances she does not contest. When this is your job you should take all of this very seriously. But I at least find her confusion believable.
rojo wrote:
So she knew damn well in May of last year that she had her first violation. So there is ZERO truth to what you are saying. Plus we are talking about #1 violation not #3.
I'm just saying her side of the story from the report. I don't know the person. And yes, I understand it was incident #1. I was trying to be concise in my explanation, didn't mean to suggest it was incident #3.
Regardless, I still think the whole episode is sad.
Ridiculous ` wrote:
rojo wrote:And if you refuse to take a test, that's an immediate ban. I'm not sure why that would constitute be a whereabouts violation. Unless she was going to miss a flight (and it doesn't say anything like that), that to me is absurd that she can just say she's already through security. I mean it takes 2 minutes to go pee in a urinal.
If the plane took off without her then of course she'd miss the flight.
I see no reason for all this harassment.
If the tester wanted to test her, why didn't he just get on the plane and test her on the plane????
Then if the plane took off, he could test her again when they got there.
There was no reason for HER to get off the plane, that she'd already legitimately boarded.
Alternatively, the tester could have called ahead and had someone ELSE test her when she got off the plane.
are you that thick?
If you miss two tests, and you know if there is third miss you will be banned, would you still get on that plane? Her only priority in life at that moment, or for any other moment, was to make sure that she did not miss the third test attempt.
It is not the USADA responsibility to make sure that she is tested when she is supposed to be tested, IT IS HER RESPONSIBLITY IF SHE WANTS TO MAINTAIN HERE ELGIBILITY AS A T AND F ATHLETE IN THE USA.
Evidently, her track career wasn't/isn't that important.