But doping according to the real world is not what you would seek to suggest is what Wada implies.
You would not say a whereabouts failure is doping.
I don't "seek to suggest"; I simply reminded you of Wada's definition of doping, with a direct quotation from their code, so that you will stop making remarks like this one: "Even Wada avoids such words."
Yes, most people would not count a whereabouts failure as doping, but Wada evidently does.
Most people would however count violating 2.1 ("Presence of a Prohibited Substance...") and 2.2 ("Use or Attempted Use by an Athlete of a Prohibited Substance") as doping (after someone tested positive for anabolic steroids!). What is your definition of doping?
A infraction of the doping rules esp ones that are based on strict liability to not warrant the simple word doper with the normal meaning attached to such.
No fault convictions and whereabouts show that a breach of doping rules do not make you a doper.
Remember the Wada code and CAS and Tucker never said she was a cheat.
Stop making stuff up. I didn't identify with anything, but argued against your "based on not being able to account for what she ate..." - she actually did remember, but the roids weren't in the food.
But doping according to the real world is not what you would seek to suggest is what Wada implies.
You would not say a whereabouts failure is doping.
I don't "seek to suggest"; I simply reminded you of Wada's definition of doping, with a direct quotation from their code, so that you will stop making remarks like this one: "Even Wada avoids such words."
Yes, most people would not count a whereabouts failure as doping, but Wada evidently does.
Most people would however count violating 2.1 ("Presence of a Prohibited Substance...") and 2.2 ("Use or Attempted Use by an Athlete of a Prohibited Substance") as doping (after someone tested positive for anabolic steroids!). What is your definition of doping?
Doping would mean the breach of the rules with intent.
Because you keep insisting that cases like these should be based on the criminal standard of proof, which is "beyond reasonable doubt". It is "the balance of probabilities".
Most people would however count violating 2.1 ("Presence of a Prohibited Substance...") and 2.2 ("Use or Attempted Use by an Athlete of a Prohibited Substance") as doping (after someone tested positive for anabolic steroids!). What is your definition of doping?
Most people may not appreciate, that it becomes much easier to find these WADA defined violations when "it is not necessary that intent, Fault, Negligence or knowing Use on the Athlete’s part be demonstrated in order to establish an anti-doping rule violation" under both Article 2.1 (Presence) and Article 2.2 (Use).
I don't presume to speak for most people, but I don't consider a one-time ingestion of a small quantity of nandrolone to repeat injections of large quantities.
LOL - she claims to have eaten some cake (no nandro) and a burrito (CAS: improbable to have nandro, highly improbable to have elevated androgens, highly improbable to cause such high nandro levels, and not consistent with the measured CIR). Allegedly she wasn't administered anything, and there is also no nandro in calcium tablets.
Open and shut case. But I waste my time here again.
I would have found her guilty of the offence but that does not justify the vile insult based on a strict liability.
I am appalled that you should identify with such a vile insult.
Because you keep insisting that cases like these should be based on the criminal standard of proof, which is "beyond reasonable doubt". It is "the balance of probabilities".
Stop making stuff up. I didn't identify with anything, but argued against your "based on not being able to account for what she ate..." - she actually did remember, but the roids weren't in the food.
There would be a large range of food ate weeks prior to the test that could have caused the positive. Do you expect anyone to remember all that they consumed between 5 and 7 weeks ago?
Stop making stuff up. I didn't identify with anything, but argued against your "based on not being able to account for what she ate..." - she actually did remember, but the roids weren't in the food.
There would be a large range of food ate weeks prior to the test that could have caused the positive. Do you expect anyone to remember all that they consumed between 5 and 7 weeks ago?
Rek is fixated not on days or weeks of food , but on a food truck. Please note , Nike could not duplicate any nandrolone on any item on that food truck menu . Lol now we know any BTC injury could be an injury or a BTC athlete is under a drug suspension .
You are almost there -- we weren't discussing the case.
Check the thread title. It seems to have something to do with the Houlihan case and your unsubstantiated insistence she ate something that resulted in a doping ban. You have another decision in mind?
There would be a large range of food ate weeks prior to the test that could have caused the positive. Do you expect anyone to remember all that they consumed between 5 and 7 weeks ago?
Rek is fixated not on days or weeks of food , but on a food truck. Please note , Nike could not duplicate any nandrolone on any item on that food truck menu . Lol now we know any BTC injury could be an injury or a BTC athlete is under a drug suspension .
My comment was against the allegation that she did know where the Nandrolone came from.