Issam Asinga banned 4 years by AIU, stripped of World U20 100m record

You must be joking. Of course you'd quote the beginning of 142 but none of the damning rest. Classic. Try quoting i or ii or iii or iv or v of 142...

And of course "similarly feasible" is NOT 50% likely but similarly attainable/doable. Huuuuge difference. Jumping down from a little box is similarly feasible for me as jumping down out of the fourth floor, but the former is a lot more likely.

Another classic rekrunner distortion.

147 actually says: "It could have been done by someone from his entourage with the intention of helping the Athlete to avoid being sanctioned..." In favor of the athlete? Hahahahaha that doesn't look good either.

This is the deal. Supplements are unregulated, and pose a risk of contamination. An athlete is responsible for what they put in their your mouth. Athlete who takes supplements assumes the risk that he or she may be putting something in their mouth that is contaminated. End of story. This is not brain surgery. If anything the drug testing program is pretty poor. Either the pharmacist are way ahead of the test, or body building has replaced interval training.

The bigger question is why don't you quote them, since it's your point? Which one of them says "intentionally doped"?

I quoted the conclusion, because that's what you got wrong. The points i or ii or iii or iv or v are the considerations which led the Panel to conclude "that the Athlete did not succeed in satisfying his burden of proof". These supporting details do not alter the conclusion I quoted, and you misquoted.

I didn't say it was 50% likely, so your point misses the point. I said, "You could think that, at most "similarly feasible" is 50% likely (referring of course to Asinga's "excuse"). "At most" means a likelihood of 50% or less. If you are arguing that I'm wrong, you must think it is surely more than 50% likely, and the Panel clearly erred and drew the wrong conclusion. Otherwise, you are not contradicting me.

I read that as possibly someone else's "intent", and not necessarily the athlete's.

What's more, I read the whole section "m. The adulteration scenario" and paragraphs 144-154 as the Panel expressing several doubts on this speculated and unestablished scenario, essentially unconvinced of, but not able to rule out, what you described in your first post: "adding the dope to his "gummies" trying to fool AIU/DT".

The AIU did not establish adulteration, as they did not have the burden, yet the Panel wished to go out of their way to express that they were not convinced for several reasons -- this favors the athlete.

If that was the end of the story, why would we need a 43-page decision to describe a story told in three sentences?

I can agree that supplements are risky, and the rest, but then the next chapter to the story is, what should be the consequence? There are scenarios that can reduce the default 4-year ban, or eliminate it all together. In the athlete's defense, the bottles bore NSF-certified labels, and the Panel found that "significant weight should be given to the NSF certification obtained." In theory, this would help support a finding of "No Significant Fault or Negligence", and a reduced sentence, as athletes can be expected to reasonably rely on NSF-certification to indicate the safety of the supplements. (See 110-111).

But another part of Asinga's story though is that, despite the gummies testing positive for GW1516, the DT Panel still found that supplements were not established by the Athlete as the source of GW1516, to the legal burden required. (See 143).

Why do you think “supplements” are the only things that can be contaminated? Have you had a bar, Kodiak pancakes, or anything that contains “whey protein”? Where does the whey protein come from? How is it different from a company selling just bags of whey protein we call a supplement? Is the FDA testing Kodiak pancakes for trace amounts of WADA banned substances? NSF and Informed Sport certified “supplements” are probably ‘more regulated” when it specifically comes to containing banned substances- because they’re specifically tested for them. We’ve seen meat contamination (clenbuterol was just found in US pork exports last year).

Obviously, certain supplements from unknown companies carry much more risk than a known brand of pancake mix or ground beef at Costco, but the point remains, contamination can come from anywhere. Furthermore, lotions and other similar products and pretty unregulated and almost none are tested for banned substances. DHEA is commonly used in lotions and creams. If the lotion or cream you use is made in the same factory after improper cleaning, you’d have trace amounts of DHEA in your lotion. If some absorbs into your skin, you could test positive. So it’s not as easy as just “avoid supplements, end of story”.

GW1516 doesn't just get into things as contamination. There's not just sacks of it sitting around and accidentally spilling into things.

I’m not specifically defending Asinga or specifically talking about GW501516. I was responding to the poster that said athletes assume risk if they take supplements. That why I quoted the post. Supplements do have risk, but literally everything has risk-which I explained. Things do get contaminated. I even gave a specific example of how DHEA could contaminate lotions/creams because it’s a relatively common product. Just google DHEA cream or search on Amazon. No one says to avoid lotions or creams, even though none of them are tested. Meanwhile, NSF and Informed Sport products are specifically tested for banned substances and many people still say to be cautious. I’m just pointing out the lack of logical consistency and that simply avoiding supplements doesn’t eliminate risk for an athlete.

+1

Especially not at gatorade/pepsi...

I expect the doper (advised by his laywer $$$) to appeal to CAS, and hope the ban then gets extended for tampering.

Ok. I was actually being nice. In the vast majority of cases the doping is intentional, and not the product of contamination. Just add the gummie excuse to the list. I am sure it won't be long before someone comes up with the Snicker Bar or the contaminated Jolly Rancher defense. Some people will believe anything, and let it be known on this board. We need to stop making excuses for these folk. Even a 4 year suspension is too light. A blanket eight years suspension should be imposed, with some consideration for reinstatement after four, plus repayment of all prize money won for the previous 12 months before the positive test. There was a time when a person was banned for life, whether they gave up their supplier or not.

I have been calling for a 8 year to life ban for these cheaters. Until the punishment is harsh enough. It will not stop. Lashinda Demus will now get her gold medal that she should have received at the 2012 Olympics. 12 years later. 12 years of loss of potential revenue and benefits and change to life. It's just not justice and it's not right.

Enhanced Games is recruiting him. (The Dope Olympics)

Thank god. Olympics is a dead organization. Finally we can get rid of this entire drug testing BS and just watch humanity strive to their maximum potential.

This is so long overdue.

For real? He would indeed be a superb candidate with his 9.89 at age 19 (though doped and DQed). With him doping to the gills, he could conceivably get down into Bolt territory.

Yes. Tweet by Enhanced Games here:

https://x.com/enhanced_games/status/1795173646475882856

I don't think he's getting near Bolt. Into 9.7's, sure. People have this irrational notion that drugs are a magical rocket booster because this anti-doping nonsense hypes them up so much. They're good for a tenth or two. That's about it. Only 1 way to find out for sure though.

Good for a tenth or two when you’re trying to get away with it. I bet an all out heavy duty doping regimen with no caution could result in larger gains.

But would this affect the length of his ban if he did such a thing?

Well the tweet only says "welcome", which sounds like an invitation to me, not necessarily a contract.

Presumably Issam could retire, race at the Enhanced Games, and come back thereafter (and then his ban would continue). But Coe has threatened harsh consequences, so who knows.

On a practical note, he'd need to dope hard-core and train with his new weight and power for a year or two, to get the full gains. So if he goes down that route, his World Athletics career is basically over. It would also imply that he's given up on fighting gatorade and his ban.

As for his potential time: 1 - 2 tenth for his normal progression, considering his age, and 1 - 2 tenth for doping to the gills on top of his current doping (if he finds the right coach for that... well a few come to mind...). 9.89 --> 9.69 worst case, 9.49 best case. Do it, Issam!!

Who cares.

People don't realize how much of a dying brand Olympics and WA are. These clowns leave host cities in ruins every 4 years, then have the audacity to give morality lectures. A new format is needed that people actually want to watch. Let these relics perish.

The ratings for the Olympics are very high. Stop writing nonsense.