Could someone give the para ref for the MRPL from within the CAS decision please.
Paragraph 33:
Moreover, the DADC also took into consideration that the Athlete's legal representative disputed the positive results of the Sample alleging that the concentration of 2.1 ng/ml, is well below the technical limit of detection of Trimetazidine, which is 10 ng/ml, and may be a technical mistake of the sample analysis in the laboratory and she confirmed at the hearing the intention to request the analysis of the B sample.
Definition of endemic (Entry 1 of 2) 1a: belonging or native to a particular people or country b: characteristic of or prevalent in a particular field, area, or environment
Prevalent is not the same as endemic.
Note again …. Particular
So you can't even read a dictionary. Under the definition of "endemic" the Merriam-Webster dictionary explicitly refers to "prevalent". And, yes, "particular" may refer to a country - like Russia - or a sport - like running.
So you can't even read a dictionary. Under the definition of "endemic" the Merriam-Webster dictionary explicitly refers to "prevalent". And, yes, "particular" may refer to a country - like Russia - or a sport - like running.
If you are brainworthy you would have read that I said that the post in question by me was to be ignored.
Could someone give the para ref for the MRPL from within the CAS decision please.
Paragraph 33:
Moreover, the DADC also took into consideration that the Athlete's legal representative disputed the positive results of the Sample alleging that the concentration of 2.1 ng/ml, is well below the technical limit of detection of Trimetazidine, which is 10 ng/ml, and may be a technical mistake of the sample analysis in the laboratory and she confirmed at the hearing the intention to request the analysis of the B sample.
10 ng/ml is the reliable equipment reading value, and that is if the equipment has been calibrated before the test. Values just below 10 may not be that far off. Values well below 10 are less reliable. It is unlikely that the test equipment can measure to a 10th of an ng/ml at any value. So, whoever is published that 2.1 value has made a technical mistake. Using the 2 value as a rock solid number is a technical mistake.
The same incessant voices defending Houlihan and Salazar are now doing the same for a Russian doper.
That might be true elsewhere. But on this thread, and at this moment, we're just trying to figure out if she really is a doper.
Bans for use of this "drug" have ranged from 3 to 6 months. A slap on the wrist compared to other drugs. The reason for the mini-bans is that WADA doesn't have sufficient evidence to back up that it enhances performance enough to change a result. This substance is not anywhere near Ben Johnson territory where you could see the doping level in his facial expressions.
Could someone give the para ref for the MRPL from within the CAS decision please.
Paragraph 33:
Moreover, the DADC also took into consideration that the Athlete's legal representative disputed the positive results of the Sample alleging that the concentration of 2.1 ng/ml, is well below the technical limit of detection of Trimetazidine, which is 10 ng/ml, and may be a technical mistake of the sample analysis in the laboratory and she confirmed at the hearing the intention to request the analysis of the B sample.
Thanks.
I repeat that the B sample does not have to report the concentration; so good luck for the defence on that one.
That might be true elsewhere. But on this thread, and at this moment, we're just trying to figure out if she really is a doper.
Bans for use of this "drug" have ranged from 3 to 6 months. A slap on the wrist compared to other drugs. The reason for the mini-bans is that WADA doesn't have sufficient evidence to back up that it enhances performance enough to change a result. This substance is not anywhere near Ben Johnson territory where you could see the doping level in his facial expressions.
Some of us are trying to understand the decision and then Wada’s reaction to such.
Then we have Johnson’s expression entered as argument.Oh dear!
Some of us are trying to understand the decision and then Wada’s reaction to such.
I see you doing nothing of the kind. You are trying to claim doping use at the same level as a Ben Johnson. And for a substance (not a PED) that CAS says is not worthy of banning her from competing. On, dear!
Some of us are trying to understand the decision and then Wada’s reaction to such.
I see you doing nothing of the kind. You are trying to claim doping use at the same level as a Ben Johnson. And for a substance (not a PED) that CAS says is not worthy of banning her from competing. On, dear!
Oh dear dear.
CAS has not said any of the sort.
TMZ is defined as a banned drug.
At no point have I said that doping was the same level as Johnson.
I am saying that when I have presented both the CAS decision and notes on Wada reaction etc it is hard to deal with some one who refs Johnson’s face.
If she does skate at the World Championships, the media frenzy will be back. If she really was doping, and if the whole team was doping, that's too much risk for Russia to send her.
Likewise, if she is on the team, I would say that means the Russian Team knows they were not doping.
It's also true that even if they knew she was innocent, they might not send her because her coach thought she gave up during the long program.
If she does skate at the World Championships, the media frenzy will be back. If she really was doping, and if the whole team was doping, that's too much risk for Russia to send her.
Likewise, if she is on the team, I would say that means the Russian Team knows they were not doping.
It's also true that even if they knew she was innocent, they might not send her because her coach thought she gave up during the long program.
Or humanity took over and the 15 yr old was given a break in many senses.
If the CAS were to clear her name by then, there would still be a media frenzy, but most everyone (except Tara Lipinski and Johnny Weir) would be on her side and sorry for what happened in Beijing. That would be an ideal situation for her to show the world who's the best.
I repeat that the B sample does not have to report the concentration; so good luck for the defence on that one.
The B sample might not be required to report the exact concentration of a drug. But I wonder if someone on either side can request that the lab reports the exact concentration.
It's also not impossible that the lab comes back with no drug when they test the B sample. I once had a lab test done that had a very strange result which made no sense. I went back to get tested again and the result was normal. So labs do make mistakes sometimes.
Help us build the best running shoe review site for a chance to win a LetsRun t-shirt.Help us build the best running shoe review site for a chance to win one of 10 LetsRun t-shirts.