Yeah, then the thread title "doping violation" would expand to the repetitive "anti-doping rule violation violation".
Indeed WADA does provide an expanded definition which can lead to some confusion in public discussion.
USADA uses the more accurate "Anti-Doping Rule Violations" in it's headline and all throughout its announcement.
But you are correct -- by that definition, WADA considers missing three unscheduled tests in 12 months as "Doping" and WADA also considers sending an "altered email" as "Doping".
I don't think that's what people here have in their minds when they say "I'm shocked a guy that looks like this is doping...", and "He's jacked." and "Since he looks like every other decathlete I am picking they are all doping."
Athletes who miss 3 consecutive tests are doping. That's why he looks jacked. He's just one in the crowd.
But, right on cue - here comes the Captain America of doping defenders.
ARTICLE 1 DEFINITION OF DOPING Doping is defined as the occurrence of one or more of the anti-doping rule violations set forth in Article 2.1 through Article 2.11 of the Code.
You confuse the Wada code with the every day use of the terms.
How can you someone be called a doper in every day dialogue who was guilty of an non intentional breach of the code.
Four weeks after his 3rd missed test, he set his all time decathlon PR (world lead, May 2022, with 8867 over 600 points (!) more than before his time out), yet he gets to keep that result.
Why? Because USADA had his DQ/suspension period start on June 27, 2022, the day of his tampering:
Pursuant to a Case Resolution Agreement under Code Article 10.8.2, USADA and the World Anti-Doping Agency agreed to begin Scantling’s three-year period of ineligibility on June 27, 2022, the date he committed a Tampering violation. In addition, Scantling has been disqualified from all competitive results achieved on and between June 27, 2022, the date he committed a Tampering violation, and July 21, 2022, the date his provisional suspension was imposed, including forfeiture of any medals, points, and prizes.
The default ban for Whereabouts failures is 2 years, while the default ban for "tampering" is 4 years. He would have gotten just 2 years (or less) by not sending an "altered email".
It looks like the WADA article 10.8.2 gives USADA rather wide discretion in choosing the start date, and permits some leniency for quick acceptance of sanction rather than fighting it, as well as considering the severity of the violation(s). Article 10.13 says the ineligibility period should start at the date of a hearing decision or the date of sanction acceptance when there is no hearing. As for disqualifications before the ineligibility period, this is for violations "during or in connection" with an Event.
Not sure what to make of "world leading by 600 points" -- it was his PB by 20 points.
What's there to say? I confuse nothing; Wada calls these anti-doping rule violations officially "doping" in Article 1 as I proved to you, so you are wrong to claim otherwise.
And I am not interested in your goal post shifting to "everyday" and whatnot. Troll somebody else, liar sorer.
What's there to say? I confuse nothing; Wada calls these anti-doping rule violations officially "doping" in Article 1 as I proved to you, so you are wrong to claim otherwise.
And I am not interested in your goal post shifting to "everyday" and whatnot. Troll somebody else, liar sorer.
You continue to invent your own code.
We live in the real world with accepted meanings for words. When those accepted meaning differ from a quasi legal text you have to make such clear.
You refuse to deal with the obvious problem of unintentional doping violations not being deemed doping or by a doper in normal discourse.You are guilty of deliberately confusing these two matters.
So how can unintentional offences make someone a doper?
Just a few days ago, it was you who literally interpreted feelings from the heart or the gut, arguing that all things must be taken literally unless otherwise indicated. Quite the double-standard.
But also wrong -- my response was equally metaphoric. Your sub-concious choice of the metaphor of a drug-induced super-soldier from a fantasy world is not lost on me.
I didn't say that. You are either a liar or a moron. Or both. And what is lost on you is reality.
Or option d) None of the above.
You did say "Nothing you have said makes it "self-evident" that you were speaking figuratively", as if it has to be said in order to be self-evident. Evidently figurative speech is beyond you, and needs to be spelled out.
But again, you chose an appropriate metaphor consistent with your long held belief that high tech serums can produce super-soldiers just like in the comics.
What's there to say? I confuse nothing; Wada calls these anti-doping rule violations officially "doping" in Article 1 as I proved to you, so you are wrong to claim otherwise.
And I am not interested in your goal post shifting to "everyday" and whatnot. Troll somebody else, liar sorer.
You are not confused. WADA's Article 1 considers sending altered emails doping.
Yet Tygart has said about Scantling's violations: "... when a rule violation, like in this case, does not involve the use of prohibited drugs, ..."
What's there to say? I confuse nothing; Wada calls these anti-doping rule violations officially "doping" in Article 1 as I proved to you, so you are wrong to claim otherwise.
And I am not interested in your goal post shifting to "everyday" and whatnot. Troll somebody else, liar sorer.
You are not confused. WADA's Article 1 considers sending altered emails doping.
Yet Tygart has said about Scantling's violations: "... when a rule violation, like in this case, does not involve the use of prohibited drugs, ..."
Yes Wada calls such doping but the rest of the world would not. It is violation but you can’t then go on into normal discourse and say that that person is a doper without being guilty of distortion.
What's there to say? I confuse nothing; Wada calls these anti-doping rule violations officially "doping" in Article 1 as I proved to you, so you are wrong to claim otherwise.
And I am not interested in your goal post shifting to "everyday" and whatnot. Troll somebody else, liar sorer.
You continue to invent your own code.
We live in the real world with accepted meanings for words. When those accepted meaning differ from a quasi legal text you have to make such clear.
You refuse to deal with the obvious problem of unintentional doping violations not being deemed doping or by a doper in normal discourse.You are guilty of deliberately confusing these two matters.
So how can unintentional offences make someone a doper?
I didn't say that. You are either a liar or a moron. Or both. And what is lost on you is reality.
Or option d) None of the above.
You did say "Nothing you have said makes it "self-evident" that you were speaking figuratively", as if it has to be said in order to be self-evident. Evidently figurative speech is beyond you, and needs to be spelled out.
But again, you chose an appropriate metaphor consistent with your long held belief that high tech serums can produce super-soldiers just like in the comics.
That is one of the longest farts I have ever heard.
Article 1, as I just cited for you. If you don't like Wada's rules, tell them, but do admit they officially say it's doping.
You must have your own version of the Code as there is no such thing as a doping offence in the actual Code.
There is no such thing as a doping offence? Now we get to it - the Code isn't about doping at all. It's an elaborate board-game with words that intellectual basket cases like you get to play with. The part I like though is that the cheats get punished - however you try to whitewash what they did.
It's great to see US fans on these boards accusing Scantling of what he is: a cheat. Over on TFN it's all "oh, he can't possibly be, he's such a lovely man, I know him, he was just forgetful and he has owned his mistake, I wish him well" ROFL.
When you get done for a 3rd missed test - itself a sign of someone trying to evade testing - and then try and falsify evidence, rather than accept what might just be a 1 yr ban, you're more than a forgetful, lovely man, you're a downright dodgy cheat.
You must have your own version of the Code as there is no such thing as a doping offence in the actual Code.
There is no such thing as a doping offence? Now we get to it - the Code isn't about doping at all. It's an elaborate board-game with words that intellectual basket cases like you get to play with. The part I like though is that the cheats get punished - however you try to whitewash what they did.
The Wada code has zero mention of a doping offence. You are the one who plays board games with words. Do follow the rigour of the Code prior to posting.
But non cheats don’t get punished; or have you still not read the Code yet.
He committed 3 whereabouts failures - and had a tampering violation. That's a doper.
No not in normal discourse nor under the Wada code ; you keep inventing stuff; why why why.
Not in the normal discourse of all your various throwaway accounts perhaps, in most people's eyes, he's a hihgly likely doper - which is the reason why the rule exists and why he has been banned for 3 years.
Pineda is going to fire you soon and get a more able Bangladeshi willing to shill for him here for $2 an hour.
No not in normal discourse nor under the Wada code ; you keep inventing stuff; why why why.
Not in the normal discourse of all your various throwaway accounts perhaps, in most people's eyes, he's a hihgly likely doper - which is the reason why the rule exists and why he has been banned for 3 years.
Pineda is going to fire you soon and get a more able Bangladeshi willing to shill for him here for $2 an hour.
I doubt it is "in most people's eyes", but if so, then most people aren't particularly well informed, and their eyes are blinded by their faith.
According to the USADA Chief of the prosecutors: "... in this case, (which) does not involve the use of prohibited drugs..."
The 3-year ban is for missing 3 tests (2 year ban maximum), followed by sending an altered email (4-year ban, reduced to 3 for quick acceptance).
Play around all you want with the definitions of the word "doping" (or hihgly(sic) likely doper), these kinds of anti-doping rule violations are not suspected, or proven to likely enhance performance.
Not in the normal discourse of all your various throwaway accounts perhaps, in most people's eyes, he's a hihgly likely doper - which is the reason why the rule exists and why he has been banned for 3 years.
Pineda is going to fire you soon and get a more able Bangladeshi willing to shill for him here for $2 an hour.
I doubt it is "in most people's eyes", but if so, then most people aren't particularly well informed, and their eyes are blinded by their faith.
According to the USADA Chief of the prosecutors: "... in this case, (which) does not involve the use of prohibited drugs..."
The 3-year ban is for missing 3 tests (2 year ban maximum), followed by sending an altered email (4-year ban, reduced to 3 for quick acceptance).
Play around all you want with the definitions of the word "doping" (or hihgly(sic) likely doper), these kinds of anti-doping rule violations are not suspected, or proven to likely enhance performance.
I think the altered email says it all. Anyone innocent would have complied & assisted with the investigation; there's a strong possibility you would get the standard 2 yr ban reduced to 1 yr, as within the rules. But to try and fake an email reeks of someone willing to do what it takes to get to the top. He wanted to wriggle out of this. That's a cheaters mindset.