Give me a break. He doesn't have to find out anything. He used a banned substance and he knows it, so there is nothing at the Gatorade manufacturing center for him to look for.
Unless he didn't know he "used" it. Unfortunately, the way the WADA Code works, it is not necessary to resolve these questions with any degree of certainty, in order to impose a 4-year ban. And the DT did not resolve the question of whether he knowingly used a banned substance to any degree of certainty.
So whatever he knew, you and I will never know.
You make a concerted effort to not know for some reason. The rest of us do know. Any rational person would critically examine dopers' explanations to the AIU's science based evidence and know they make absolutely no sense. The next thing they would then ask themselves is why dopers are making up such bizarre stories as their explanations. I would advise you and them to employ Occam's razor when they are caught cheating. Or do what Sha'carri Richardson did when she was caught using pot. She womaned up and said: "I did it"
Excellent news. But what a cheat, adding the dope to his "gummies" trying to fool AIU/DT.
Also nice statement from the AIU Chair: "All explanations based on contamination must be thoroughly scrutinised and not just blindly accepted." Too bad for the dopers and their apologists here, rekrunner.
Oh look, another anonymous poster trolling me.
This looks like another win for "strict liability" -- yay!
I think no one is calling for "blind acceptance" of "contamination" without "scrutiny", but it is unsurprising for the Chair of one of the parties in the dispute to state they are doing the right thing, and the former Director-General of WADA supporting an aggressive policy he helped create. Is he being objective, or using this occasion for PR?
Contrary to your "blind acceptance" of "adulteration", the DT wasn't convinced with the "adding the dope to his "gummies"" scenario either, noting "significant caveats", and that "contamination" and "adulteration" were "similarly feasible". There is an inherent advantage when the AIU bears no burden for its own speculation.
It is well known that taking supplements carries an inherent risk of contamination from an unlabelled substances, due to the lack of regulations in the supplement industry, or lack of consistent compliance to regulations, despite all the certifications. As such, WADA recommends "extreme caution", and warns that "QA schemes ... do not eliminate, the risk of an inadvertent doping infringement." Recall this is a 19-year old boy who did not buy the gummies, but won the gummies as a prize for being Gatorade Player of the Year. They were stamped with an NSF label. What is the expected due diligence here for this 19-year old rising star?
It is unsurprising to me to find yet another case where an athlete was banned for 4 years, for not being able to meet the legal burden imposed on athletes from a policy of "strict liability", or "guilty until proven innocent", despite testing his gummies and finding GW1516. This is particularly concerning when saving samples of your supplements from the same batch, which then test positive, and succeeding to identify the source, is still not enough to exonerate the athlete, but rather results in the full 4-year ban.
Instead, a 19-year old Surinamese boy living in the USA was forced to engage lawyers and scientists to explore the inner guts of Gatorade gummy production some 9 months earlier.
What I see in the DT report is a lot of open questions for all speculative scenarios, resulting in a decision with all of the uncertainties intact, due to a failure of the athlete to overcome the standard of "guilty until proven innocent". The consequence for this 19-year old, who was already required to fund his defense, is a full 4-year ban, return of any and all prize money, and 1,000 GBP payment to WA.
"In making its decision, among other matters, the Disciplinary Tribunal took into account the fact
that the Gatorade Recovery Gummies provided in unsealed containers by the athlete for testing
contained significantly more GW1516 on the outside than on the inside, which practically
excludes any contamination by raw ingredients during the manufacturing process; that the
Gatorade Recovery Gummies were batch-tested by the National Sanitation Foundation (NSF)
and were credited with the NSF Certified for Sport certificate; and that a sealed jar of Gatorade
Recovery Gummies, from the exact same batch taken by Asinga, tested negative by the
Lausanne anti-doping laboratory."
- more GW1516 found on the outside than the inside of gummies. Lol
- the batch of gummies in question tested negative for any GW1516 by a certified lab. 😉
The AIU informs you of the prohibited drug and the quantities in your body. You then have to explain how such got in your system. How is this not a fair process? What it sounds like to me is that you want the AIU to accept any ridiculous explanation from athletes who know full well they took the prohibited substance.
It is mostly unfair to athletes who honestly do not know the source, and will be unable to prove it. In this case, Asinga seemed to manage to find the source, but this was still ruled insufficient to prove the source, as there was still the unanswered question of "contamination" versus "adulteration" -- neither of which was proven, and both of which may not be possible to prove by any party.
So, if we go with the spirit of justice that athletes are innocent of intentional doping until proven guilty, the scenario we potentially have, as it hasn't been ruled out, is that Asinga won Gatorade Player of the Year award, which included a prize of a large supply of Gatorade gummies, and despite the NSF stamp, some of the batch may still have been contaminated in a way that can no longer be determined (e.g. dirty mold hypothesis). And the punishment for the innocent but unlucky athlete faced with the impossibility to prove contamination is exactly the same as the athlete who intentionally doped. In fact, the intentional doper might get a 1-year reduction for not contesting it, if he knows he cannot win.
Recall we are talking about a 19-year old boy, competing on scholarship at University, and burdening him with finding out how Gatorade manufactures gummies, and how they clean their equipment. How much spare money did you have as a college student at 19 years old? I was hovering at around $0, going into my second year of university, and accumulating debt.
See Lizzy Banks above, and what proving her innocence cost her "£40,000, her mental and emotional health, and effectively putting an end to her career". Note she still has 4 ADRVs against her, despite the 10-month suspension and eventually winning her case against UKAD by proving her innocence. Then take note that in 2019, potentially as many as 316 athletes were charged with contamination, before WADA reduced the threshold limits on 6 diuretics.
I have previously talked in other threads about the case of Simon Getzmann (who was featured on one of Seppelt's latest documentaries on ARD), where taking WADA-legal medication cost him €10,000 of his father's money, and a 1-year suspension, before he could prove his innocence and resume playing sport.
If we compare the current WADA Code to the WADA Code before 2015, the standard sanction would be 2-years, without requiring the athlete to prove the source, or the "AIU to accept any ridiculous explanation". This is still not ideal for the innocent athletes, but it is better than now, and the 2-year sanction would not formally be characterized as "intentional doping" by a doping tribunal.
Dear rekrunner,
Rarely is a high-profile athlete convicted solely on a positive result; in some cases, the timing and circumstances of a test and specifics of that is used to prove a hypothesis. When you are thought to be doping, test positive and cannot provide a credible explanation for your chemistry...those 3 data points equal doping. This is no different than knowing your neighbor does not pick up after his big dog, knowing your neighbor's big dog is sometimes on your yard and one day you find large big-dog size poop on your yard. Your neighbor's dog pooped on your lawn. (1+1+1=3)
Sometimes an athlete test positive who was not under suspicion, has only trace amounts of dope in their system and it is a known fact that the dope substance can come from unintentional sources and the athlete can provide a credible explanation (ala Ajee Wilson)...that athlete is not given 4 years ban.
I have known/had interactions with AIU, WADA/USADA members and I can tell you that those individuals/organizations would rather let 10 suspected dopers continue to dope rather than wrongly convict a clean athlete. At any time, there are several high-profile athletes who are almost certainly doping, but they pass tests by keeping their blood chemistry slightly under the thresholds, game the whereabouts system, etc., compete and have amazing careers. - Athletes are given the benefit of doubt and perhaps too much at times!
When is AIU going to post the verdict? I don't know what the delay is but surely their tendency to take over a year in some cases is bad practice - if an athlete ends up being cleared then aren't they liable to getting sued for loss of earnings by missing important meets/championships for no reason?
You make a concerted effort to not know for some reason. The rest of us do know. Any rational person would critically examine dopers' explanations to the AIU's science based evidence and know they make absolutely no sense. The next thing they would then ask themselves is why dopers are making up such bizarre stories as their explanations. I would advise you and them to employ Occam's razor when they are caught cheating. Or do what Sha'carri Richardson did when she was caught using pot. She womaned up and said: "I did it"
OK -- I'll make a bigger effort to know. Please tell me how is it that you and all rational people already know Asinga knowingly "used a banned substance"? When did Asinga know? I suppose once the A-Sample and B-Sample results came back, he knew, but the important question is whether he knew before being notified by the AIU. All I know on the topic is what I read in the Decision of the Disciplinary Tribunal. Can you point me to something authoritative that reveals more knowledge?
Regarding the AIU's science based evidence, all parties are in agreement that Asinga did not challenge or refute the AIU's science based evidence. The science based determination of the "presence" of GW1516 was not contested and was admitted. The DT found a "presence" violation, and declined to consider whether a "use" violation may also have occurred (bringing no added value to the decision).
The main contention was whether the subsequently tested gummies found with GW1516 were contaminated (athlete's position) or adulterated (AIU's position). Neither position was supported or disproved by any of the AIU's science based evidence. The DT, who I assume is "rational", found "on the basis of the evidence before it, neither scenario can be ruled out, and considers them to be similarly feasible". As such, Occam's razor does not cut towards contamination or adulteration.
"In making its decision, among other matters, the Disciplinary Tribunal took into account the fact
that the Gatorade Recovery Gummies provided in unsealed containers by the athlete for testing
contained significantly more GW1516 on the outside than on the inside, which practically
excludes any contamination by raw ingredients during the manufacturing process; that the
Gatorade Recovery Gummies were batch-tested by the National Sanitation Foundation (NSF)
and were credited with the NSF Certified for Sport certificate; and that a sealed jar of Gatorade
Recovery Gummies, from the exact same batch taken by Asinga, tested negative by the
Lausanne anti-doping laboratory."
- more GW1516 found on the outside than the inside of gummies. Lol
- the batch of gummies in question tested negative for any GW1516 by a certified lab. 😉
.
In brief, there were three speculated scenarios:
1) contamination in the "raw ingredients" themselves
2) contamination from "inappropriate cleaning" of the equipment
3) "adulteration" of the gummies after the bottles were opened (unsealed)
The DT ruled out "raw ingredients" based on GW1516 on the outside, but although some questions remain for both of the remaining scenarios, the DT did not rule out either of the "contamination from inappropriate cleaning" and "adulteration" scenarios, finding them "similarly feasible".
This is explained in detail by the DT in their decision.
Rarely is a high-profile athlete convicted solely on a positive result; in some cases, the timing and circumstances of a test and specifics of that is used to prove a hypothesis. When you are thought to be doping, test positive and cannot provide a credible explanation for your chemistry...those 3 data points equal doping. This is no different than knowing your neighbor does not pick up after his big dog, knowing your neighbor's big dog is sometimes on your yard and one day you find large big-dog size poop on your yard. Your neighbor's dog pooped on your lawn. (1+1+1=3)
Sometimes an athlete test positive who was not under suspicion, has only trace amounts of dope in their system and it is a known fact that the dope substance can come from unintentional sources and the athlete can provide a credible explanation (ala Ajee Wilson)...that athlete is not given 4 years ban.
I have known/had interactions with AIU, WADA/USADA members and I can tell you that those individuals/organizations would rather let 10 suspected dopers continue to dope rather than wrongly convict a clean athlete. At any time, there are several high-profile athletes who are almost certainly doping, but they pass tests by keeping their blood chemistry slightly under the thresholds, game the whereabouts system, etc., compete and have amazing careers. - Athletes are given the benefit of doubt and perhaps too much at times!
Maybe for other athletes, the circumstances are different, but here the Decision of the DT only talks about one positive test result.
Ajee Wilson was cleared by USADA. She was one of at least 27 athletes that USADA has found committed "no fault" violations, while USADA Chief Travis Tygart expressed the same criticisms as I did above, regarding the recent shift of burden on the athletes to prove non-intent to avoid a 4-year ban.
It may be different on an individual basis, but I'm not convinced the AIU shares this sentiment of protecting athletes who have potentially unknowingly consumed contaminated products, at least not to the same degree.
When is AIU going to post the verdict? I don't know what the delay is but surely their tendency to take over a year in some cases is bad practice - if an athlete ends up being cleared then aren't they liable to getting sued for loss of earnings by missing important meets/championships for no reason?
"the Disciplinary Tribunal took into account the fact that the Gatorade Recovery Gummies provided in unsealed containers by the athlete for testing contained significantly more GW1516 on the outside than on the inside" Hold on, it seems important that there was GW1516 on the inside. How would he have gotten the material into the gummies with 0 trace and none of the obviously required specialized industrial equipment to do so?
"and that a sealed jar of Gatorade Recovery Gummies, from the exact same batch taken by Asinga, tested negative by the Lausanne anti-doping laboratory." As far as I understand, based off of the same report I just posted this is impossible because there was no sealed jar from the same batch due to Gatorade refusing to send one to the AIU, meaning that a sealed jar from the same batch could not have been tested. (section 49 paragraph 4)
Quite frankly I think Asinga was probably doping in some way, shape, or form (the times he was running and his progression was UNREAL) but it seems like there are some important discrepancies in the investigation process that should be addressed here
When is AIU going to post the verdict? I don't know what the delay is but surely their tendency to take over a year in some cases is bad practice - if an athlete ends up being cleared then aren't they liable to getting sued for loss of earnings by missing important meets/championships for no reason?
One more question. Can he compete in NCAA?
No, I don't think so.
I had the same question, as the NCAA is not a WADA signatory. But paragraph 10.14.1 (and Comment 77) forbids the ineligible athlete from competing in, among other things, "non-Signatory national-level Event organization". There is CAS precedence (Damar Robinson in 2015) that the NCAA is certainly a "national level Event organization". The consequence of competing would be to add new periods of ineligibility to the end of the existing period.
"the Disciplinary Tribunal took into account the fact that the Gatorade Recovery Gummies provided in unsealed containers by the athlete for testing contained significantly more GW1516 on the outside than on the inside" Hold on, it seems important that there was GW1516 on the inside. How would he have gotten the material into the gummies with 0 trace and none of the obviously required specialized industrial equipment to do so?
"that the Gatorade Recovery Gummies were batch-tested by the National Sanitation Foundation (NSF) and were credited with the NSF Certified for Sport certificate" Thats not what the report I read says. The report I read says that the batch Asinga was given was specifically NOT tested, and was incorrectly labeled as having been certified. (section 49 paragraph 2) report in question:
"and that a sealed jar of Gatorade Recovery Gummies, from the exact same batch taken by Asinga, tested negative by the Lausanne anti-doping laboratory." As far as I understand, based off of the same report I just posted this is impossible because there was no sealed jar from the same batch due to Gatorade refusing to send one to the AIU, meaning that a sealed jar from the same batch could not have been tested. (section 49 paragraph 4)
Quite frankly I think Asinga was probably doping in some way, shape, or form (the times he was running and his progression was UNREAL) but it seems like there are some important discrepancies in the investigation process that should be addressed here
You are right that the "inside" contamination suggests against "adulteration" (see paragraph 154).
The report does find (see paragraph 105 and also 90-104), based on the witnesses and documents, that the two different batches are actually the same batch with two different batch numbers. One was sold without NSF certification, while the other was held until NSF certification was obtained, and then given a different batch number.
The only way this can make sense is when some of the 20,000 bottles in the two batches were contaminated while others are not. The panel also considered this unlikely (see Paragraph 109).
When the panel is not convinced any proposed scenario before it is likely, even when such elements are difficult, if not impossible to prove, the athlete will have failed to meet his burden (see Paragraph 120).
It's GW-501516, it's an endurance enhancing research chemical, and it's complete bullcrap that most athletes will never get popped for shadow doping or high-normal testosterone replacement doses and other TUEs.
it's ludicrous. How does Total Running Productions either feign stupidity so much to appear indignant and flabbergasted when doping cases fall, or actually possess that level of stupidity?
how can he not do enough research to know that it's designated as 501516, not "1516"?
Just ignore Rekrunner please. See the posts above for the reason.
+1
He will keep defending any doper's excuse no matter how ludicrous (burrito/Epo puddles/false positive/contamination/menopause, altitude,... ). Given his agenda, he is literally unable to ever accept a doping ban, no matter how clear the case.
Just ignore Rekrunner please. See the posts above for the reason.
+1
He will keep defending any doper's excuse no matter how ludicrous (burrito/Epo puddles/false positive/contamination/menopause, altitude,... ). Given his agenda, he is literally unable to ever accept a doping ban, no matter how clear the case.
Sha'Carri Richardson - "I smoked marijuana. I admit it. I'm guilty."
Rekrunner - "Maybe Sha'Carri Richardson didn't smoke marijuana. We can't be sure. She might be totally innocent."
Just ignore Rekrunner please. See the posts above for the reason.
+1
He will keep defending any doper's excuse no matter how ludicrous (burrito/Epo puddles/false positive/contamination/menopause, altitude,... ). Given his agenda, he is literally unable to ever accept a doping ban, no matter how clear the case.
Why do you guys want to so badly ignore public facts you don't like? Fear? Insecurity? You can ignore me if you want, but unless you want to ignore the DT Decision too, some inconvenient facts remain.
My "agenda" does not include accepting or rejecting any ban, but whether the process that determines who is a "doper" can be rightly considered just and fair to all athletes.
I was explicitly asked by "Come Now People", how a process that presumes intentional doping unless established otherwise is unfair. In this case, the DT found that they could neither rule out Asinga's "excuse", nor the AIU's speculation of "adulteration", and that both were "similarly feasible".
You could think that, at most, "similarly feasible" is 50% likely, which stlil fails to meet the higher burden of establishing greater than 50% "more likely than not".
Given the unanswered questions remaining in this case, and that it involves "supplements", which WADA warns require "extreme caution", and applying a spirit of justice, I think that a finding of No Significant Fault or Negligence, and a reduced ban, would have been more appropriate than treating Asinga with the same 4-year ban meant for proven intentional dopers.
I don't recall ever defending "epo puddles", but the reality is that it is not easy, or always possible, for an innocent athlete to prove that they are an exception. The DT summarizes it well in Paragraph 120 "The Panel is aware, of course, that these are difficult, if not impossible, elements to establish. However, the fact remains, that under the applicable ADR, it is the Athlete's burden to establish that the Prohibited Substance came from a Contaminated Product."
He will keep defending any doper's excuse no matter how ludicrous (burrito/Epo puddles/false positive/contamination/menopause, altitude,... ). Given his agenda, he is literally unable to ever accept a doping ban, no matter how clear the case.
Sha'Carri Richardson - "I smoked marijuana. I admit it. I'm guilty."
Rekrunner - "Maybe Sha'Carri Richardson didn't smoke marijuana. We can't be sure. She might be totally innocent."
I wouldn't doubt she smoked marijuana. If I recall, she was banned for 30 days and had to take a series of courses on ethics or something similar.
My first response would not be to challenge the science, or the law, but to ask why WADA bans marijuana. A quick check at USADA's website FAQ on marijuana says, it is not banned for performance reasons, but for health and spirit reasons. Then I would ask if marijuana is unhealthy, or against the spirit of sport.
LOL rekrunner. Learn how to read. 'similarly feasible' does not equal 'similarly likely' at all.
In fact, 142 i + ii + iii + iv + v give a nice summary as to why the DT concluded that Assinga intentionally doped. See also 146 and 147 and 148. Naturally you would never quote that... give it up, rekrunner, your bias is way too obvious.
What is called when you try include yourself in a favorable group, e.g. "sensible people", in order to justify and promote some action you cannot otherwise explain? Coevett does this frequently by referring to what "rational people" conclude.
I would expect sensible people to proactively look for and find the same kind of details that I find.
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.