Good for her. The violation of the rules is extreme but it’s not like she committed murder or a crime against a child. She deserves a second chance. There’s apparently a lot of people here who have never made a mistake or a wrong act!
She literally broke the one rules in sports you don't break
she's a cheat.
Who said she was a "cheat"? Anyone with a name? Can you defend your baseless nonsense by providing any evidence or quote whatsoever, or just with a bunch of word salad?
Apparently that is the standard to meet in these threads.
Similarly, is there any evidence that demonstrated intent, fault, negligence, or knowing use, on the Athlete's part?
Much was made before about facts and evidence.
Earlier "astro" asked "What the heck has to happen for some of the commenters here to admit doping?" For me, it would take evidence that demonstrates intent and knowing use, rather than an codified presumption that deems intent.
Earlier "astro" asked "What the heck has to happen for some of the commenters here to admit doping?" For me, it would take evidence that demonstrates intent and knowing use, rather than an codified presumption that deems intent.
+1
Like in this case: use of a forbidden PED (nandrolone) demonstrated by the positive A sample, confirmed by the positive B sample, both way above the "allowed" amount, and no valid excuse.
Here in fact the cheat's burrito excuse got laughed out of town by the WADA experts, the AIU experts, the World Athletics experts, the CAS panel, your beloved Tygart, and all independent scientists consulted thus far like Professor Tucker. That burrito joke of hers will be one for the ages, like the sex-with-wifey and EPO-infested-puddles and the hidden-twin thingy.
I am not sure about Krissy Gear but I know for a fact an Arkansas athlete has taken and gotten banned for PEDS in recent history, Is it possible multiple athletes on the team are taking PEDS? Probably, However no one cares really the person I am talking abouts ban is lifted and she got a coaching job at a decent D1 in Iowa State.
I should add that the Federal Supreme Court of Switzerland also confirmed the full four year ban for this doper, and that she received due process of course, demonstrating that the cheat lied about that as well. Well her lying is not surprising, see my username.
Earlier "astro" asked "What the heck has to happen for some of the commenters here to admit doping?" For me, it would take evidence that demonstrates intent and knowing use, rather than an codified presumption that deems intent.
+1
Like in this case: use of a forbidden PED (nandrolone) demonstrated by the positive A sample, confirmed by the positive B sample, both way above the "allowed" amount, and no valid excuse.
Here in fact the cheat's burrito excuse got laughed out of town by the WADA experts, the AIU experts, the World Athletics experts, the CAS panel, your beloved Tygart, and all independent scientists consulted thus far like Professor Tucker. That burrito joke of hers will be one for the ages, like the sex-with-wifey and EPO-infested-puddles and the hidden-twin thingy.
How much more could one possibly ask for?
One could ask for "evidence that demonstrates intent and knowing use, rather than an codified presumption that deems intent."
That was not provided by any of the WADA experts, the AIU experts, the World Athletics experts, the CAS panel, Tygart, and all independent scientists consulted thus far like Professor Tucker nor the Federal Supreme Court of Switzerland.
Like in this case: use of a forbidden PED (nandrolone) demonstrated by the positive A sample, confirmed by the positive B sample, both way above the "allowed" amount, and no valid excuse.
Here in fact the cheat's burrito excuse got laughed out of town by the WADA experts, the AIU experts, the World Athletics experts, the CAS panel, your beloved Tygart, and all independent scientists consulted thus far like Professor Tucker. That burrito joke of hers will be one for the ages, like the sex-with-wifey and EPO-infested-puddles and the hidden-twin thingy.
How much more could one possibly ask for?
One could ask for "evidence that demonstrates intent and knowing use, rather than an codified presumption that deems intent."
One could ask for a video of the injection and a signed confession, but one would be living in fantasyland.
One could ask for "evidence that demonstrates intent and knowing use, rather than an codified presumption that deems intent."
That was not provided by any of the WADA experts, the AIU experts, the World Athletics experts, the CAS panel, Tygart, and all independent scientists consulted thus far like Professor Tucker nor the Federal Supreme Court of Switzerland.
Nope. They did it by Proof by Exhaustion:
The steroids were either used intentionally (as deduced by WADA, see CAS report) or came from the burrito (the only possible alternative according to Houlihan who herself discarded the supplements as source). Since the steroids could not have been in the burrito (for some 5 - 10 reasons, see CAS report), Houlihan used them intentionally.
It is not that complicated, rekrunner. And one comes to that conclusion independent of the WADA Code (which comes to that very same conclusion by deeming it intentional).
And that’s the problem! Why is a convicted doper allowed to behave like this?
Because WADA has no power over non-sanctioned events, no matter how much prize money they hand out.
Correct. But if the governing bodies were really serious about suspending dopers they could theoretically re-start a doper's ban to the date of their most recent competition. So Houlihan's would now end four years from last week rather than later next year. I do not see this happening but I think I'd like to.