sdafdfsd wrote:
This is the stupidest thing I've ever heard. He's obviously guilty and lying about (come on, really?) or too stupid to be engaged in the USADA testing system.
Unless his ridiculous story can be verified, the guy should be banned. There shouldn't be a pass for good story telling.
Yes, I really wonder if/why this decision would be accepted. Seems to me this should be appealed to CAS.
Ultradude wrote:
I have no idea whether to believe this excuse or not. But, I think NO MATTER WHAT the reason, there has to be a ban of some duration for ANY positive test. Athletes have to be held responsible for what is in their body be it due to tainted beef, kissing someone on medication, or whatever crazy circumstances that caused it to get there. I say a minimum three month penalty no matter how convincing the explanation. As a professional athlete, part of your job is to make sure nothing on the WADA banned substances list ends up in your body. Failure to do this must be penalized. I would also add that I think in both this case and the Ajee Wilson case, USADA is making these exceptions in order to keep these athletes in the World Champs. I bet if these positive tests had come in October they would have been handed 3-6 months bans.
I don't agree with the "No Matter What" point of view. I think USADA is so desperate for doping news that they prosecute ridiculous "low contamination no previous adverse" cases like this. However one thing I DO agree with is that USADA is making exceptions in order to keep elites in upcoming competitions. Of course USADA/USATF is playing politics. They throw the book at lower level athletes and then give a slap on the wrist to elites when they are able to do so. It's blatantly obvious and leaves a bad taste.
I read the USADA report.
Seems legit.
Ratsorizzo wrote:
They throw the book at lower level athletes and then give a slap on the wrist to elites when they are able to do so. It's blatantly obvious and leaves a bad taste.
Fernando Cabada?
Next on the docket.
"Yes, Mr USADA investigator, my male lover takes large amounts of steroids and when we engaged in oral one day, right after his injection, I guess his spooge must have been loaded with more testosterone than normal."
Probenecid for sinus symptoms? That Indian health care system sure is innovative.
This makes a joke out of USADA
ukathleticscoach wrote:
This makes a joke out of USADA
Why do you think that?
You realize it was an independent arbitrator who made the decision and not USADA. It was rooted in precedents from CAS.
What this case says to me is that sports drug laws have to have some relation to normal systems of justice .
Thus strict liability is not absolute responsibility .
You just can't have no fault bans .
In the same way it won't be long before human rights laws stop drug sports testing .
And I remind that you do not sign your rights away by doing sports .
Gender or race or other forms of discrimination, health and safety , and let's wait for employment law as athletes are seen as workers and not independent self employed (gig economy stuff for those in the UK).
actually no. The drug they referenced Moxylong is Amoxicillin and a common steroid that has been used for infections (I know it because I had a bad allergic reaction to it as a kid).More: http://www.ndrugs.com/?s=moxylong%20dsSo it is a very small amount and seems plausible. Silly, but plausible.Still surprised on one has asked for pics yet of the offender, the She Devil that enticed him to bite the able. [No, really, any pics?]
malpractice wrote:
Probenecid for sinus symptoms? That Indian health care system sure is innovative.
Rubbin' noses like eskimoses wrote:
This must be why Russians are guilty, but USA people are innocent. Siberian weather is conducive to Eskimo-style kissing, not passionate. And the frequency is lower due to alternating back and forth with vodka swilling.
White = bad
Non-white = good
Mr. Obvious wrote:
It is in no way mandatory to put down any supplements at all on your doping control form.
The form says
DECLARATION OF MEDICATION USE AND BLOOD TRANSFUSIONS:
LIST ANY PRESCRIPTION/NON-PRESCRIPTION MEDICATIONS OR SUPPLEMENTS, FOR E.G. BETA-2 AGONISTS AND GLUCOCORTICOIDS, TAKEN OVER THE PAST 7 DAYS (INCLUDE DOSAGE AND DATE LAST TAKEN WHERE POSSIBLE) AND (IF A BLOOD SAMPLE IS COLLECTED) ANY BLOOD TRANSFUSIONS OVER THE LAST THREE MONTHS.
There's then a "SUPPLEMENTARY REPORT FORM?" tick box if you need more room than the available.
The Instructions say
The DCO or the Athlete should complete the Declaration of Medication Use and Blood Transfusions section of the DCF. Blood Transfusions in the past three months should be recorded only when a blood sample is collected. If there is not enough space in this section, the DCO/Athlete should continue on a SRF and record the number of the SRF on the DCF. The DCO must ensure that no Athlete information is contained on this SRF.
Whatever the current CAS/WADA opinion is regarding this section, it's just stupid to have it there if it ultimately means nothing.
This "Final Award" document is curious in more ways than one.
Firstly, although the case is USADA (claimant) v Roberts (respondent), it always puts the latter's arguments first, which is not the normal order.
This then seems to have the effect that, in the mind of the arbitrator (going on some precedents albeit) that the respondent has a very low bar to reach, namely that merely a vaguely plausible story that USADA can't rebut (perhaps even for lack of discovery/evidence) is sufficient. One could contrast the Tate Smith CAS case (Australian canoeist), where they didn't accept such shenanigans (he essentially claimed to get stanozolol in his system from the Danube, and they quibbled over whether this was a "bare possibility" versus a "probability").
Finally, the writing is not clear exactly on the facts, but Salazar's story needs some vetting. Even something as simple as: "did she go to India?" doesn't seem to have any facts (airline receipts?) cited. Was her alleged stepfather really there? Etc. (She claims to have "Googled" moxylong: any browser history given?) In any event, her claims about his conversation in Hindi with the shopkeeper would seem to be hearsay. Admittedly, from the Western standpoint of law it's the "opposing's side" to raise these cross-examinations, and USADA here did not (for whatever reason).
Directional justice wrote:
Admittedly, from the Western standpoint of law it's the "opposing's side" to raise these cross-examinations, and USADA here did not (for whatever reason).
Yes. USADA wasn't exactly well prepared to get this drug cheat convicted. Coincidence? I think not, as there is precedence...
ukathleticscoach wrote:
This makes a joke out of USADA
No, it doesn't. The arbitration system worked its magic. USADA doesn't need to win every case in order to be effective.
Wow, I mean we knew "Alex" Salazar was doing some unique stuff to get around the system...but this one takes the cake.
After all these years, you still see people in forums like this who are outraged that the anti-doping system does not yield consistent, just and reasonable results. But it never will.
I'm far from surprised to hear about this.
Gil Roberts was also in a high speed police chase while at Texas Tech.
His teammates and him stole socks from an Academy Sports and the cops got called. Rather than just hand the socks back, a high speed car chase ensued with the police.
Justin Gatlin fails two drug tests, Carl Lewis openly admits of doping, many of the Jamaican sprinters have failed tests (including Blake and many of Bolt's teammates), Bernard Lagat tested positive for EPO. All of them are considered track heroes and ambassadors of the sport... Now, you have this guy.
Meanwhile, NOP athletes have not failed a single test and they get burnt at the stake.